Public Objections Alone Not Enough: Punjab & Haryana HC Restores Mobile Tower Permission, Limits DC’s Powers Under Telecom Law
Case Name: Saral Mobile Project Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana & Others
Date of Judgment: 24.03.2026
Citation: CWP-22231-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The High Court held that permission to install a mobile tower cannot be cancelled merely on the basis of public objections. The District Magistrate has no power under Section 16 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 to cancel permission; the provision only permits relocation or alteration of already installed infrastructure.
Summary: The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, cancelling earlier permission granted for installation of a mobile tower in a public park.
The petitioner, holding a valid Infrastructure Provider Category-I licence, had obtained permission under the Haryana Communication & Connectivity Infrastructure Policy, 2023 to erect a mobile tower on HSVP land. However, the permission was subsequently cancelled on the basis of objections raised by residents’ welfare association citing health concerns.
The Court examined the statutory framework under the Telecommunications Act, 2023 and the Telecommunication (Right of Way) Rules, 2024. It found that the petitioner qualified as a “facility provider,” HSVP as a “public entity,” and the land as “public property.”
The Court held that the impugned cancellation was based solely on generalized concerns of health and public opposition, which were not supported by any scientific or legal basis. It observed that mobile towers are installed across the State, including in residential areas and public parks, and residents in one locality cannot be treated differently from others.
A key issue addressed was the scope of Section 16 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023. The Court clarified that this provision applies only after installation of telecom infrastructure and permits relocation or alteration, not cancellation of permission. It further held that even relocation powers arise only when the property owner seeks alteration, which was not the case here.
The Court found that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his jurisdiction by cancelling the permission, as no such power is conferred under the statute.
Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the impugned order cancelling the permission. It held that the Deputy Commissioner acted beyond jurisdiction, as Section 16 of the Telecommunications Act, 2023 does not empower cancellation of permission and that public objections without legal or scientific backing cannot override a validly granted approval.