[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
M/S Indus Towers Ltd vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
WP No. 108185 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
WRIT PETITION NO.108185 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. M/S. INDUS TOWERS LTD.,
NO.12, TOWER-D, 7TH FLOOR,
SUBRAMANYA ARCADE,
BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE-29,
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY,
SHRI. NISHAN UNNI.
2. SHRI. RAHUL S/O. RAMESH DEVAMANE,
AGE. 33 YEARS, OCC. PRIVATE EMPLOYEE,
R/O. #78, YALLAMMA DEVI HOUSING SOCIETY,
RAJATGIRI, DHARWAD-580004.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHUBHENDU A.AKALWADI, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by YASHAVANT AND:
NARAYANKAR
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
KARNATAKA R/BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT, DHARWAD-580001.
3. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION (HDMC),
HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
WP No. 108185 of 2025
HC-KAR
4. POLICE COMMISSIONER,
HUBBALLI-DHARWAD CITY,
DHARWAD-580001.
5. PSI GOKUL PS,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI-580030.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. T.HANUMAREDDY, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1, R2 & R5;
SRI. C.S. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI. BHUSHAN B.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE THE
WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI BY QUASHING THE
ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 ON APPLICATION
NO.MTN-HDW 32-2025-26 VIDE ANNEXURE-B. B) ISSUE A WRIT
IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NO.3
DIRECTING THEM TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY
PETITIONERS VIDE ANNEXURE-C, D AND E DATED 03-09-2025,
12-09-2025 AND 15-09-2025. C) ISSUE THE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5
TO CONSIDER AND PROVIDE THE REQUEST UNLAWFUL MADE
FOR POLICE PROTECTION AGAINST ANY OBSTRUCTION VIDE
ANNEXURE-C DATED 03-09-2025 AND ETC.,.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
WP No. 108185 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
The present writ petition is filed seeking the following
prayers:
"a) Issue the Writ in the nature of Certiorari by
quashing the order passed by respondent no. 3 on
application no. MTN-HDW 32-2025-26 vide ANNEXURE-
B.
b) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus to
respondent no. 3 directing them to consider the
explanation offered by petitioners vide ANNEXURE-C, D
and E dated 03-09-2025, 12-09-2025 and 15-09-2025.
c) Issue the Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing
respondent no. 4 and 5 to consider and provide the
request unlawful made for police protection against
any obstruction vide ANNEXURE-C dated 03-09-2025.
d) Any other relief as deems fit to this Hon'ble Court, in
the interest of justice and equity"
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 is a
Telecom Infrastructure Company and petitioner No.2 is the
owner of the land. The petitioner No.1/Company is carrying on
the business inter alia of operating mobile telephone services by
way of providing network in several states in India including the
State of Karnataka. The petitioner No.1/company is managing
towers of many private telecom operators and maintaining their
assets such as DAC fibers, Right of way, Dark Fiber, Duct space
for the purpose of grant on lease/rent/sale basis to the licensees
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
Telecommunication Services under Section 4 of the Indian
Telegraph Act, 1885, on mutually agreed terms and conditions.
3. It is submitted that the petitioner No.1 has identified
the land belonging to petitioner No.2 for setting up of a tower. In
this backdrop, petitioner No.1 sought to install a tower in the
property of the petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 has executed
a lease deed in favour of petitioner No.1/Company permitting the
company to install and operate mobile tower in the property for a
period of 10 years starting from 01.08.2025 to 31.07.2025.
Thereafter, they obtained a stability report from the Expert
Agency, who had accepted to go ahead for installation of the
tower in the open space of the property to the extent of 20x20
and the petitioner No.1 has invested huge sums of money in the
procurement of materials in order to commission and installation
of the tower and devices worth more than Rs.40 lakhs.
Thereafter, he has submitted an application on the online portal
of the respondent No.3. To the surprise of the
petitioner/Company, the respondents have issued the impugned
communication rejecting the request of the petitioner/Company.
It is stated that within the radius of 50 meters, three towers are
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
there, as it emanates radiation and based on the complaint given
by the locality people, they have issued the impugned
communication rejecting the request of the petitioner/Company
for erection of the tower. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners are
before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
submits that the respondents have no such authority to reject
the case of the petitioners for installation of a tower on the
ground that it will emanate radiation. He has drawn the attention
of this Court to Rule 15(4) of the Telecommunication (Right of
Way) Rules, 2024, which reads thus:
"15 (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."
5. Learned counsel submits that as per the said Rule, no
such ground is available to the respondents to reject the case of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
the petitioners. It is submitted that as per the said Rule, when
they have given an application along with the structural stability
report, the respondents have to consider the same. The learned
counsel for the petitioners had relied on the orders passed by the
High Court of Bombay in case of Jagruk Nagrik Sanghatana
and others v. State of Maharashtra and others1. He relied
on paragraphs 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the said order, which
reads thus:
"14. Thus, the issue of telecommunication towers
causing any health hazard to the residents has been
conclusively decided by the Division Bench in Biju K.
Balan. The judgment of Rajasthan High Court
in Justice I.S. Israni (Retd.) (supra) has been
considered by the Division Bench in paragraph 49 of
the judgment in Biju K. Balan (supra) and the same
has been distinguished. Therefore, reliance of the
Petitioners on the said judgment of Rajasthan High
Court in respect of their contentions is clearly
misplaced.
15. In Vijay Verma (supra), the Division Bench of
Himachal Pradesh High Court has also considered the
objection of adverse impact on health of citizens due
to radio frequency radiations of telecommunication
towers. The Himachal Pradesh High Court took into
consideration the entire material placed on record by
the Petitioners in respect of contention of adverse
impact of electromagnetic radiations emanating from
mobile towers and concluded in paragraphs 20, 21
and 23 are as under:--
NC:2025:BHC-AS:36592-DB
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
"20. We in view of the overwhelming
material are of the considered view that as
of now there is no cause of alarm with
regard to the possible ill-effect on human
health by electromagnetic Field (EMF
radiation) from mobile phone towers and
mobile phones because the limits adopted In
India cannot have any biological effect on
human. In fact, the limits set by India are
much lower than the Internationally
adopted recommendations of the
International Commission of Non-Ionizing
Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) which
account for thermal and non thermal effect.
21. There is no conclusive evidence as on
date which may have found any adverse
health effect by EMF radiation from the
mobile tower or mobile hand set by the WHO
or SCENIHR and so long as EMP radiation
power level In vicinity of Mobile Base
Stations is below the prescribed limits, there
should not be any cause or concern for
adverse thermal effect on human beings
living close to Mobile Base Station or in the
nearby vicinity.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we
find no merit in these petitions and the same
are accordingly dismissed, leaving the
parties to bear their costs."
16. The judgment of the Division Bench in Biju K.
Balan has been followed by this Court in numerous
cases. In Indus Tower
Limited v. Grampanchayat (supra) in which
Grampanchayat had adopted a resolution for stoppage
of work of erection of mobile tower on the ground of
harmful effect of the mobile tower on health of the
residents and possibility of cause of cancer. The
Division Bench of this Court held in paragraph 7 are
as under:--
7. These observations would suffice us to
say that the fear expressed by the villagers
is without any basis. We may add here that
today also, there is no change in the fact
situation with regard to the absence of
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
relevant scientific material, after the
position which obtained on the date of
rendering of the judgment in January 2019
in the aforestated case of Biju K.
Balan (Supra). The respondent no. 1, which
has passed the impugned resolution,
Resolution No. 7, based upon the
apprehension that radiation emitted by a
mobile tower has harmful and carcinogenic
effect, is not based upon any scientific
material. It is well settled law that any
agency or institution or person which seeks
to deny a benefit or right to another on a
special ground like the ground of mobile
tower radiation being harmful to the health
of the citizens, such agency or institution or
person has a special burden of proof to
establish the soundness of such a ground.
But, in the present case, the respondent-
Grampanchayat has failed to discharge the
special burden of proof which was on it's
shoulders.
17. More recently, in Indus Tower Limited v. Gram
Panchayat Tanang (supra) the Division Bench has
held in paragraphs 49 and 50 are as under:--
"49. All of the above decisions clearly do not
accept the contentions similar to the one as
canvassed by the complainants in the
present case and throw much needed light
on the vexed issue of potential health risks
of radiation from mobile towers, which is
also raised in the given case. The above,
decisions in our view, are squarely
applicable to the given facts and
circumstances in hand.
50. Before parting we may observe that in
the modern age the inescapable reality is
that mobile phones are no longer a luxury
but an inevitable necessity, it be in the
urban areas or in the remotest part of the
country. In order to facilitate seamless
communication throughout the country and
to ensure that citizens of the remote areas
are not deprived of revolution in technology
which manifest itself in the form of mobile
phones, mobile towers cannot be summarily
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
dispensed with on misplaced information.
The judgments of various Courts cited supra
makes the position clear in this regard,
leaving no room for ambiguity or
uncertainty, for the present."
18. Thus, the issue appears to be squarely covered by
several judgments of various High Courts, including of
this Court, which have repeatedly repelled the
apprehension expressed about the cause of health
hazards due to electromagnetic radiations emanating
out of mobile phone towers. Petitioners have not
placed any independent conclusive material for this
Court to take a different view than the one
consistently taken by various High Courts. We are,
therefore, not inclined to accept Petitioners' prayer
for removal of any mobile tower on account of
apprehension expressed by them about ill effects of
electromagnetic radiations emanating out of mobile
phone towers.
19. Coming to the second grievance of the Petitioners
about installation of telecommunication towers
without securing permissions from the local
authorities, Respondent No. 6-Association has raised
a plea that development permission from local
authorities, as envisaged under the provisions of
MRTP Act, is not required to be secured for the
purpose of setting up telecommunication towers on
properties other than public properties. It is
contended that the installation of telecommunication
towers can be undertaken by merely giving an
intimation in writing to the local authority and by
paying the prescribed fees. Respondent No. 6-
Association has placed on record the entire regulatory
framework dealing with installation of
telecommunication towers. It has relied on the
advisory guidelines issued by DoT in the year 2013
under which guidelines were issued to the State
Governments for issuance of clearance for installation
of mobile towers. The guidelines appear to have been
issued with a view to streamline the issuance of
permissions by local authorities on charging of one-
time administrative fees through a single window
clearance system in a time bound manner. Towards
compliance with advisory guidelines of 2013, the
State of Maharashtra issued notification dated 4
March 2014 and formulated Regulations for setting up
telecommunication cell sites/base stations and
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
installation of equipment for telecommunication
network in State of Maharashtra."
6. He has also relied on the judgment of the Bombay
High Court in case of Indus Tower Ltd., and another v.
Grama Panchayat, Tanang and others2 arising out of
W.P.No.15903/2024. He relied on paragraph No.50 of the said
order, which reads as under:
"50. Before parting we may observe that in the
modern age the inescapable reality is that mobile
phones are no longer a luxury but an inevitable
necessity, it be in the urban areas or in the remotest
part of the country. In order to facilitate seamless
communication throughout the country and to ensure
that citizens of the remote areas are not deprived of
revolution in technology which manifest itself in the
form of mobile phones, mobile towers cannot be
summarily dispensed with on misplaced information.
The judgments of various Courts cited supra makes
the position clear in this regard, leaving no room for
ambiguity or uncertainty, for the present."
7. In a similar line, he has relied on the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in W.P.(C) 11831/2021 & CM Appl.36584/2021
arising between Indus Towers Ltd., v. North Delhi Municipal
Corporation. Relying on all these judgments learned counsel
submits that the respondents cannot reject the case of the
petitioners.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits
that considering the complaints that are received from the local
people and considering the fact that already there are another
three towers installed within 50 meters, the respondents have
rejected the request of the petitioners. Hence, there is no
irregularity with the said endorsement.
9. Having heard the learned counsels on either side,
perused the material on record.
10. The installation of these towers is governed by the
Telecommunication (Right of Way) Rules, 2024. Chapter II deals
with establishment, operation and maintenance of underground
telecommunication network in public property. Chapter-V deals
with establishment, operation and maintenance of
telecommunication network in property other than public
property. Section 15(4) as is extracted in the preceding
paragraphs makes it clear that the party who wants to install a
tower shall 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 pool is proposed, and a copy of certificate
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
by the structural engineer authorized by the public entity
attesting to the structural safety of the building or structure
where the mobile tower or pole is proposed to be established.
11. This makes it very clear that the limited power that
has to be exercised by the respondents is to look as to whether
the structure on which the mobile tower is installed is stable or
not. Apart from that, the act does not confer any other right on
the respondent No.3/Municipality. In this case, it is not the case
of the respondents that there is no structural stability to the said
structure and as prescribed under Section 15(4), the certificate is
placed before the Court. In that view of the matter, the
respondent No.3 has no right to interfere with the installation of
the tower. Accordingly, this Court is passing the following:
ORDER
(i) The order passed by the respondent No.3 on
application No.MTN-HDW 32-2025-26 (Annexure-
B) is set aside.
(ii) The respondents shall consider the application of
the petitioner in accordance with Rule 15(4) of
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-D:1573
HC-KAR
the Telecommunication (Right of Way) Rules,
2024 within a period of one week from the date
of receipt of the copy the order.
(iii) All I.As., in this writ petition stand closed.
Sd/-
JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI
YAN
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5
