Jaya Sehgal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jaya Sehgal Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Directions issued to respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad to decide the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) within 15 days after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties; interim restraint on respondent No.3 from making the mobile tower operational till the representation is decided; liberty reserved to respondent No.3 to move for revival of the writ petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad should be directed to re-examine/decide the grant of N.O.C. for installation of the mobile tower in the petitioner's vicinity in accordance with the Guidelines (Annexure P-3) issued by the Department of Telecommunications, given the non-disposal of the petitioner's representations including that dated 10.03.2025.

Ratio / Principle

Without issuing notice, the Court directed respondent No.2 Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) within 15 days, after granting an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.

Key takeaways

Till the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025 is decided, respondent No.3 is restrained from making the installed mobile tower operational.ratio¶18
Respondent No.3 was left at liberty to institute an appropriate motion for revival of the writ petition if it has any grievance against the Court's directions.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab & Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.), oral order dated 21.03.2025, disposing without notice of a writ petition by a sexagenarian cancer patient seeking directions to the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad to re-examine grant of N.O.C. for a mobile tower in her vicinity in accordance with the Guidelines (Annexure P-3) issued by the Department of Telecommunications: the Deputy Commissioner was directed to take a final decision on the petitioner's representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) within 15 days, after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties; respondent No.3, which had installed the tower (not yet operational), was restrained from making it operational till the representation was decided; respondent No.3 was left at liberty to seek revival of the writ petition if aggrieved.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

108 CWP-7899-2025 Date of Decision : March 21, 2025

JAYA SEHGAL

-PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advocate with Ms. Vibha Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner, a sexagenarian lady, who claims herself to be a cancer patient, has filed the instant writ petition for issuance of directions upon the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, to re-examine the issue of grant of N.O.C. for installation of mobile tower in the petitioner’s vicinity, inasmuch as, the same is not in accordance with the Guidelines (Annexure P-3) issued by the Department of Telecommunications.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, despite the petitioner making various representations, including the recent one dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6), to the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, for claiming the relief (supra), no decision has yet been made thereon. He further submits that, in the interregnum, the respondent No.3 has even installed the tower, but, it has not yet been

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.03.21 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

2

CWP-7899-2025

made operational.

At this stage, without issuing notice, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondent No.2- Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, to make final decision on the petitioner’s representation dated 10.03.2025 (Annexure P-6) within 15 days from today, but, after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Till the petitioner’s representation (supra) is decided, the respondent No.3 is restrained from making the tower concerned operational.

4. Disposed of accordingly.

In case, the respondent No.3 has any grievance from the directions (supra) of this Court, the former is at liberty to institute an apt motion for revival of the instant writ petition.

A copy of this order be handed over to the learned State counsel, who is present in the Court, under signatures of Special Secretary of this Court, thereby enabling the respondent No.2 to make the requisite compliance.

March 21,	2025	(KU	LDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE
devinder
	Whether speaking/reasoned	:	Yes/No
	Whether Reportable	:	Yes/No

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.03.21 13:32 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment