1 / 5 2025:CGHC:46146 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4801 of 2025 Elevar Digitel Infrastructure Private Limited (Previously Known As ATC Telecom Infrastructure Private Limited) Having Its Registered Office At 4th Floor, Skyline, Icon, Andheri Kurla Road, Andheri (East) Mumbai 400509 Circle Office At Maloo 1- Unit No. 706, And 707,7th Floor,- Plot No-26- C/CA Scheme No.94, Ring Road Sector-C Indore- 452010, Madhya Pradesh Through Its Authorised Signatory Mr. Sachin Sonawane. ... 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 (C.G.) 2 - Director Urban Administration And Development, Directorate, Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar, District- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Union of India Through Its Secretary, Department Of Telecommunication Ministry Of Communication And It. Govt. Of India New Delhi. 4 - Secretary Department Of Telecommunication Ministry Of Communication Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan Atal Nagar Nawa, Raipur District- Raipur (C.G.) 5 - Nagar Palika Nigam Jagdalpur Through Its Commissioner, Nagar Palika, Nigam Jagdalpur, District- Jagdalpur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate along with Ms. Astha Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. AG ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.09.12 10:29:32 +0530 2 / 5 For Respondent No.3: Ms. Shweta Rai, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, DSG for UOI For Respondent No.5: Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 10/09/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. By way of the instant petition, the petitioner is challenging the legality, validity and propriety of the notice dated 27/06/2025 issued by Respondent No.5 whereby a renewal fee of Rs.38,00,000/- has been levied for the period 2010-11 to 2025-26. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the instant demand notice has been issued without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would next contend that there is no disclosure of the legal framework under which the demand has been raised making the demand completely non-est in the eyes of law. He would next contend that the demand has been imposed illegally and arbitrarily on the existing mobile tower of the petitioner though the petitioner has obtained NOC from the Municipal Corporation, Jagdalpur. He would next contend that it is only for the first time, that the demand has been raised by the Respondent Nagar Palika Nigam, Jagdalpur and therefore, any demand made for the time period beyond the prescribed time under Limitation Act or under any Circulars / Rules/ Government Orders which ceased to exist on the 3 / 5 date of issuance of such demand is liable to be quashed at the very outset. There has also been a change in law over the years and the demand if any should have been raised contemporaneously. He would next contend that the Right of way Policy, 2021 notified by the State of C.G. governs the subject matter but it does not envisage or mandate of recurring annual renewal fees for mobile tower installation, therefore the demand for the payment of renewal fees charges in blocks of five years each from the period 2010-11 to 2025-26 (read 2010-11 to 2014-15, 2015 to 2019, 2020 to 2025 is beyond comprehension as the RoW Policy does not provide whether the charges have to be paid yearly or after expiry of period of 03 years or (05) five years. He would next contend that the Right of Way Rules, 2024, notified by the Department of Telecommunications, Government of India (effective from 01.01.2025), and duly adopted by the Government of Chhattisgarh vide its Notification dated 31.12.2024, explicitly state that no fee or charges are payable. Importantly, Rule 15 (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. He would next contend that however, still the Petitioner which is an entity providing essential services to the public at large is being disrupted from carrying out its activities by Respondent Nagar Palika Nigam, Jagdalpur which without any authority has gone to the extent of removing the kit-kat fuse of the site namely Civil Lines, Jagdalpur, located at Jagdalpur 4 / 5 Ward, near Lalbagh (at Sr. No. 1 of the DN issued by the Respondent), resulting in disconnection of the electricity supply, whereas, the Respondent Nagar Palika Nigam, Jagdalpur does not have the authority to remove the kit-kat fuse. Such act of the Respondent Nagar Palika Nigam, Jagdalpur only reflects high handedness and their intent to not abide by the procedure as prescribed under law and accordingly the impugned demand is liable to be set aside. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the documents with utmost circumspection. 6. Rule 15 (3) of the RoW Rules, 2024 reads as under. "15.3 A public entity shall not levy any fees, charges, rent, annuity, compensation, or require any bank guaranteor any other financial contribution, for the establishment, operation and maintenance of telecommunication network in property other than public property." 7. Section 14 of the Telecommunication Act, 2023 reads as under:- "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. (3) The telecommunication network installed on any 5 / 5 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, of the shutdown forcible or telecommunication network established by an authorised entity, except where such actions may be necessary to deal with any natural disaster or public emergency." 8. Looking to the above provisions and looking to the grievance raised by the petitioner, in view of the considered opinion of this Court no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping this petition pending and it would be appropriate to direct Respondent No.5 to decide the reply/representation made by the petitioner in accordance with law in an objective manner and assigning reasons within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the meanwhile, no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner. 10. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the respondent authorities shall proceed on its own merits. 11. With the aforesaid observation, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. SD/- SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu