Dismissed¶69

Harjit Singh v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Delhi HC19 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/13577/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delhi HC dismisses writ challenging MCD permission for Jio mobile tower on terrace of 737 Pocket-1 Paschim Puri: Rule 15(1) Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules 2024 requires consent/agreement only from person owning/controlling/managing the property (respondent no.6 owned the terrace; petitioner owned only the ground floor); Rule 15(4) structural-safety certificate (IIT Roorkee) duly obtained per MCD status report dated 10.10.2025; Telecommunication Act 2023/ROW Rules compliance found complete; second-round litigation point noted (earlier W.P.(C) 9188/2025 withdrawn 14.07.2025); petition dismissed, pending CM applications disposed of.

What did the court decide?

None to the petitioner; all pending applications stand disposed of. ¶69

Harjit Singh Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors. — Delhi HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the petitioner; all pending applications stand disposed of.

¶69

Issue for consideration

Whether installation of the mobile tower required the petitioner's consent as co-owner/ground-floor owner under Rule 15(1) of the ROW Rules, the MCD permission having allegedly been granted on respondent no.6's misrepresentation that she is the sole owner. +2 more

¶21

Court's answer

Rule 15(1) of the ROW Rules requires a telecom service provider to obtain prior consent of, and enter into an agreement with, the person who has ownership, control or management of the private property in question.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The documents on record clearly establish that respondent no.6 is the sole owner of the terrace of the subject property where the mobile tower is sought to be installed, whereas the petitioner is only the owner of the ground floor.

¶12

Key takeaways

It is undisputed that respondent no.5, which proposed to install the mobile tower, obtained the consent of, and entered into an agreement with, respondent no.6, thereby satisfying Rule 15(1).ratio¶13
Rule 15(4) requires a certificate from a structural engineer attesting to the structural safety of the building before establishment of a mobile tower; MCD confirmed that the Structural Safety Certificate was duly obtained by respondent no.5, so the requirement is satisfied.ratio¶66

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Delhi (Amit Bansal, J.), W.P.(C) 13577/2025 with CM APPLs., decided 19th February 2026 — writ petition DISMISSED. Petitioner Harjit Singh, registered owner of the ground floor of property no. 737, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063, sought withdrawal of the permission granted by respondent no.1/MCD to respondents no.4 and 5 for installation and erection of a Jio digital mobile tower on the terrace of the 3rd floor, contending that (i) his consent was required under Rule 15(1), Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 ('ROW Rules'), as co-owner, the permission having allegedly been granted on respondent no.6's misrepresentation of sole ownership; (ii) health and safety standards would be breached; and (iii) no structural-stability inspection had been carried out (Rule 15(4)). Held: Rule 15(1) requires prior consent of, and an agreement with, the person having ownership, control or management of the property; the record showed respondent no.6 to be the sole owner of the terrace (the petitioner owning only the ground floor) and it was undisputed that respondent no.5 had obtained her consent and executed the agreement — corroborated by the MCD status report dated 10th October 2025 recording the intimation dated 12th July 2025, the Structural Safety Report from IIT Roorkee and the Leave and License Agreement between respondents no.5 and 6. The Rule 15(4) structural-safety certification was likewise confirmed by MCD as duly obtained; respondents no.5 and 6 therefore duly complied with Rule 15 and there was no impediment to installation of the tower. Obiter: the petition was a second round on the same cause of action (earlier W.P.(C) 9188/2025 withdrawn on 14th July 2025 with liberty to challenge the validity of the ROW Rules, which liberty was not availed). Petition dismissed; pending applications disposed of; no judicial precedents cited.

¶1

$~3

¶2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 19^th February, 2026

¶4

- W.P.(C) 13577/2025 with CM APPL. 55705/2025 & CM APPL. 73454/2025

¶5

HARJIT SINGH .....Petitioner

¶6

Through: Mr. Asish Nischal, Mr. Arun Nischal and Mr. Shivam Kumar Singh, Advocates.

¶7

versus

¶8

MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Tajinder Virdi, Advocate for MCD (through VC) . Mr. Anubhav Gupta, Advocate for R-2. Mr. Manish Rohilla, Advocate for R-3. Mr. V. Chandrashekara Bharathi, Advocates for R-5. Mr. Nakul Mohan, Advocate for R-6.

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶10

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondent no.1/ MCD to withdraw the permission granted by it to the respondents no.4 and 5 for proposed installation and erection of Jio digital mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the premises of the respondent

¶12

Signature Not Verified

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

W.P.(C) 13577/2025

¶15

Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:52:09

¶16

no.6 bearing property no. 737, Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 (hereinafter ‘ subject property ’).

¶17

At the time of filing of the present petition, the respondents no.4 and 5 had laid down the foundation for installation and erection of the mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the subject property.

¶18

Notice in the present petition was issued on 3^rd September 2025.

¶19

On the same date, the respondents no.4 and 5 were directed to maintain status quo with regard to the installation and erection of the mobile tower on the terrace of the 3^rd floor of the subject property.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions:

¶21

5.1. The subject property upon the terrace of which the aforesaid mobile tower is proposed to be erected consists of four floors. The petitioner is the registered owner of the ground floor, whereas the respondent no.6 is the owner of the 1^st , 2^nd and 3^rd floors of the subject property. However, the petitioner’s consent has not been obtained for the mobile tower installation despite the fact that he is a co-owner of the subject property. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(1) of the Telecommunications (Right of Way) Rules, 2024 (hereinafter ‘ ROW Rules ’).

¶22

5.2. The aforesaid permission has been granted by the respondent no.1/ MCD on account of misrepresentation by the respondent no.6 that she is the sole owner of the subject property.

¶23

5.3. Installation of the said mobile tower would breach health and safety standards of the residents. A written representation was also made in this regard by the residents of Pocket-1, Paschim Puri, New Delhi-110063 to the Officer-in-Charge, P.S. – Punjabi Bagh on 6^th June 2025.

¶24

5.4. No inspection was carried out to assess the structural stability of the

¶25

Signature Not Verified

¶26

Page 2 of 6

¶27

W.P.(C) 13577/2025

¶28

Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:52:09

¶29

subject property. Attention of this Court is drawn to the photographs attached with the present petition to submit that the subject property is old and is not structurally stable to bear the weight of the aforesaid mobile tower. Reliance in this regard is placed on Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules.

¶30

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent no.5 has made the following submissions:

¶31

6.1. In terms of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 read along with the ROW Rules, no permission is required from the statutory authorities to install a mobile tower in a private property. The only requirement is to enter into an agreement with the owner of the private property and send an intimation to the municipal authorities.

¶32

6.2. The respondent no.6 is the owner of the entire property except the ground floor, which has been sold by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner. Hence, the respondent no.5 has entered into an agreement with the respondent no.6 in accordance with the ROW Rules.

¶33

6.3. A Structural Stability Certificate has also been obtained from IIT, Roorkee in term of Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules. Accordingly, it is submitted that the installation of the mobile tower in the subject property is strictly in accordance with the applicable law.

¶34

A status report dated 10^th October 2025 has been filed on behalf of the respondent no.1/ MCD, wherein it has been confirmed that the respondent no.5 submitted an intimation dated 12^th July 2025 with respect to installation of rooftop telecom infrastructure in the subject property along with Structural Safety Report from IIT Roorkee and Leave and License Agreement entered into between the respondents no.5 and 6.

¶35

The respondent no.6, in her affidavit dated 14^th November 2025, has

¶36

Signature Not Verified

¶37

Page 3 of 6

¶38

W.P.(C) 13577/2025

¶39

Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:52:09

¶40

confirmed that she is the absolute owner of the subject property except the ground floor, which was sold by her to the petitioner on 2^nd February 2011, without apportioning the rights to the terrace of the subject property. It has further been stated that she has entered into an agreement with the respondent no.5 in terms of Rule 15 of the ROW Rules and granted it permission for erection and installation of a mobile tower in the subject property.

¶41

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶42

At the outset, it is noted that the present petition is the second round of litigation on the same cause of action. A previous writ petition, being W.P.(C) 9188/2025, was filed with the same cause of action, which was withdrawn on 14^th July 2025 with the liberty to file a fresh petition challenging the validity of certain Rules of the ROW Rules. However, despite liberty granted by this Court, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of any of the provisions of the ROW Rules, including Rule 15 which governs the establishment of telecommunication network in private properties.

¶43

A reference may be may to Rule 15(1) the ROW Rules, which reads as under:

¶44

“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property other than public property. – (1) Any facility provider desiring to enter any immovable property other than public property, for the purposes specified under sub-section (2) of section 12 of the Act, shall do so with the prior consent and enter into an agreement with the person who has ownership, control, or management over such property :

¶45

Provided that such person and the facility provider may mutually decide whether to get the agreement registered under the

¶46

Signature Not Verified

¶47

Page 4 of 6

¶48

W.P.(C) 13577/2025

¶49

Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:52:09

¶50

provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), pursuant to sub-section (3) of section 14 of the Act. ”

¶51

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶52

In terms of Rule 15(1) of the ROW Rules, a telecom service provider is required to obtain prior consent of, and enter into an agreement with, the person, who has ownership, control or management of the private property in question. In the present case, the documents on record clearly establish that the respondent no.6 is the sole owner of the terrace of the subject property, where the mobile tower is sought to be installed whereas the petitioner is only the owner of the ground floor.

¶53

It is also an undisputed position that the respondent no.5, who has proposed to install the mobile tower, has obtained the consent of, and entered into an agreement with, the respondent no.6.

¶54

Now a reference may be made to Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules, which is set out below:

¶55

“ 15. Establishment of telecommunication network in property other than public property. –

¶56

*** *** ***

¶57

(4) In the case of establishment, operation and maintenance of mobile tower or pole over such property, the facility provider shall, prior to commencement of such establishment, submit information in writing, in the form provided for this purpose on the portal, to the concerned public entity along with details of the building or structure where the establishment of the mobile tower or pole is proposed, and a copy of certification by a structural engineer authorised by a public entity, attesting to the structural safety of the building or structure where the mobile tower or pole is proposed to be established. ”

¶58

[Emphasis Supplied]

¶59

Rule 15(4) of the ROW Rules requires the telecom service provider to furnish a certificate from a Structural Engineer with regard to the structural

¶60

Signature Not Verified

¶61

Page 5 of 6

¶62

W.P.(C) 13577/2025

¶63

Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:21.02.2026 17:52:09

¶64

safety of the private property where the mobile tower is proposed to be installed.

¶65

Once again, the respondent no.1/ MCD has confirmed that the aforesaid Structural Safety Certificate has been duly obtained by the respondent no.5.

¶66

Accordingly, the respondents no.5 and 6 have duly complied with the requirements laid down under Rule 15 of the ROW Rules for installation and erection of a mobile tower in a private property.

¶67

In view of the discussion above, in my considered view, there is no impediment with the respondent no.5 in installing the mobile tower at the terrace of the subject property.

¶68