1 2025:CGHC:46495 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1597 of 2021 1 - Elevar Digital Infrastructure Private Limited 2nd Floor Shop No. 3 To 7 And 40 A, 41 To 43, Mapal High Street, Opposite Ashima Mall, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal 462026. ... Petitioner versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Its Secretary, Department Of Urban Administration And Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, P.S. Rakhi, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Chief Municipal Officer, Nagar Panchayat, Jarhi, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. 4 - Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Department Of Telecommunication, Ministry Of Communication And It, Govt. Of India, New Delhi. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla with Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocates. For State/Respondents No.1 & 2 : Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, P.L. For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Anmol Sharma,CGC. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment on Board 11/09/2025 SOURABH PATEL Digitally signed by SOURABH PATEL Date: 2025.09.16 11:47:16 +0530 2 1.By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s): “10.1That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue appropriate writ, quashing the demand notice dated 03- 01-2021 (Annexure P/1) issued by Respondent No. 3. 10.2 Any other relief as deem fit and proper by this Hon’ble in the facts and circumstances of the petition may kindly be passed.” 2. Facts of the present case are that Petitioner/Elevar Digital Infrastructure Private Limited, is engaged in the installation of mobile towers. 3. It is pleaded that Petitioner is a registered telecom infrastructure provider company by virtue of registration granted by the Department of Telecommunications Govt. of India. The Petitioner is also providing its telecom infrastructure to other telecom companies like Reliance Jio, Airtel and Idea etc. on sharing basis. 4. The Petitioner through this petition has challenged the demand notice dated 08-01-2021 (Annexure P/1) by virtue of which the Respondent No. 3 in a most illegal and arbitrary manner has demanded permission fee and settlement fee @ 50 times of permission fee amounting to Rs. 81,60,000/- on the ground that the Petitioner after expiry of permission on 15-09-2018 has not paid the renewal fee and the telecom infrastructure is being used without any permission after expiry of permission on 15-09-2018 till date, hence the Petitioner is liable to pay the settlement fee. 5. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3 would submit that the demand notice was issued under the provisions of CG Municipalities (Erection of Temporary Tower or Structure for Cellular 3 Mobile Phone) Rules 2010 as amended on 30.06.2020 and the demand made is proper in law. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Vaibhav Shukla along with Ms. Astha Shukla, learned counsel appearing for Petitioner would submit that Petitioner has already paid charges more than the permission fees and copy of cheque in this regard has been filed/annexed as Annexure P/12. He would further submit that, the Nagar Panchayat or local body cannot claim the settlement fees or compounding fee, whereas in the present case, the Nagar Panchayat has demanded compounding fee 50 times of the permission fees. 7. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849, wherein a similar issue was involved and the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with order dated 10.02.2020 in writ petitions filed before the High Court wherein the challenge was to the power and authority of the State Government/local authority to realise tax/fee or a charge on erection of mobile towers by the petitioner herein and also as to the exorbitant quantum of tax/fee (being “initial permit fee”) as well as the subsequent yearly renewal fee as well as the compounding/settlement fee. He pointed out that in para 16, the Hon’ble Supreme Court recorded the submissions given by the counsel appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh that authorized mobile towers would be regularized and relief has already been granted insofar as it remains to the settlement of compounding fees. 8. He also placed reliance on the judgment of Gram Panchayat Dharsiwa and Another Versus State of C.G. & Ors. WPC 158 of 4 2022 decided by this Hon’ble Court on the issue of imposition of settlement fees or compounding fee. 9. He further argued that taking into consideration the difficulty of service providers the Right of Way Rules, 2024, notified by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India (effective from 01.01.2025), and are duly adopted by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide its Notification dated 31.12.2024 by virtue of which the earlier Policy of 2021 has been repealed. Importantly, Rule 14 (3) of the ROW Rules 2024 states that no fee or any charges is payable for the establishment and maintenance of Telecommunication Network in Property other than Public Property. “14. Establishment of telecommunication network over property other than public property. 14.1…………………….. 14.2……………………… 14.3 A public entity shall not levy any fees, charges or compensation for the establishment of telecommunication network over property other than public property. 14.4 ……………………” Further Section 14 of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 has explicitly exempted the levy of any kind of property tax, levy, cess as per provisions of Section 14 of the said Act. Further no coercive action can be taken against the mobile tower without the previous permission of the Central Govt. The provisions of the Act is enumerated herein below: “14. (1) A facility provider shall not have any right, title or interest in the property on which telecommunication network is established, except the right to use the property as provided under section 11 or section 12. (2) The telecommunication network installed on any property, shall not be subject to any claims, encumbrances, liquidation or the like, relating to such property. 5 (3) The telecommunication network installed on any property, shall not be considered as part of such property, including for the purposes of any transaction related to that property, or any property tax, levy, cess, fees or duties as may be applicable on that property. (4) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, no public entity, except with the permission of an officer authorised by the Central Government for this purpose, shall have the authority to take any coercive action, such as sealing, preventing access, or forcible shutdown of the telecommunication network established by an authorised entity, except where such actions may be necessary to deal with any natural disaster or public emergency. 10. Ms. Neelima Singh Thakur, learned Panel Lawyer for State and Ms. Anmol Sharma, Advocate appearing for UOI would submit that no relief has been sought against them, and the dispute involved in the instant matter is between the petitioner and Respondent No. 3. 11. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and carefully perused the documents placed on the record. 12. The Respondent No. 3 has issued the demand notice dated 08.01.2020 (Annexure P/1) demanding permission fees and settlement fees at the rate of 50 times of permission fees amounting to Rs 81,60,000and therefore the Petitioner has filed the instant petition challenging the demand notice dated 08.01.2020. 13. During the pendency of the Writ Petition the Hon’ble Supreme Court was posed with a similar challenge by means of Special Leave Petition bearing number SLP(C) No.s 16014-16015 of 2020 arising from order dated 10.02.2020 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Chhattisgarh in a bunch of writ petition wherein the challenge was to the power and authority of the State Government/local authority to realise tax/fee or a charge on erection of mobile towers by the petitioner herein and also as to the exorbitant quantum of tax/fee (being “initial 6 permit fee”) as well as the subsequent yearly renewal fee as well as the compounding/settlement fee came to be decided on September 21, 2023 reported as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. vs. The State of Chhattisgarh & Anr., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 849. 14. In the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. (supra) in para 16 & 19 it was held as under: “16. In fact, during the course of submissions, learned senior counsel Shri Sidhharth Bhatnagar, appearing for the State of Chhattisgarh also drew our attention to the 2021 Rules and submitted that under the said Rules, relief has been granted to the mobile tower providers wherein unauthorized mobile towers would be regularized and therefore the petitioner herein, to that extent, have been granted relief insofar as the settlement or compounding fee is concerned provided they make their applications to the concerned authorities and seek orders of regularization under the 2021 Rules. 19. 19. Having held as, we clarify that in view of the 2021 Policy of the respondent State, the petitioner or any other infrastructure provider similarly situated as the petitioner, are at liberty to make the requisite application before the concerned authorities for regularization of the existing mobile towers which may have been erected unauthorizedly. It is needless to observe that on such applications being made, the same shall be considered in the light of the 2021 Policy of the respondent State and in accordance with law.” 15.Taking into consideration the provisions of law, judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Anr. (supra), the law laid down therein and further considering the facts of the present case it is quite vivid that the Nagar Panchayat has no right to charge settlement fees or compounding fee as the judgment records at para 16 that relief has been granted to the mobile tower providers as regards settlement fees or compounding fee. 7 16. Accordingly, the demand notice dated 08.01.2021 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. 17. With the aforesaid observation(s) & direction(s), this petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Sourabh P.