1 2025:CGHC:53207-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 781 of 2025 Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd., A Duly Registered Company Under The Indian Companies Act, 1956 And Having Its Office At Plot No. 197/198, Noida, Special Economic Zone (Nsez), Phase 2 On Dadri Road, Noida U.P.- Pin No. 302022 (Phase 2 Noida), Through Its Authorized Representative Hemendra Pratap Bharadwaj, S/o Late Bhootdutt Sharma, Aged Around 60 Years, R/o K-18, 3rd Floor, Shatabdi Enclave, Sector 49, Barola, G.B. Nagar- 201301 (U.P.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department of Electronics And I T, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Naya Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (Chips) Through Chief Executive Officer State Data Building Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (Formerly Known As New Raipur Development Authority) Through Chief Executive Officer, Paryavas Bhawan, North Block, Capital Complex Atal Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 4. Chhattisgarh State Power Districution Company Limited Through Its Chief Engineer (Commercial), Chhattisgarh State Power Companies Compus, Danganiya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492013 ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.10.31 18:36:23 +0530 2 For Appellant : Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Raja Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31 .10.2025 1. Heard Mr. Harshmander Rastogi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 and Mr. Raja Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4. 2. The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 426 of 2019 (Cyfuture India Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. 3. Brief facts in a nutshell are that the appellant is a leading provider of Data Center, Cloud, BPO, Application Development, and Digital Media Marketing services. On invitation of the State of Chhattisgarh under its Electronics, IT & ITeS Investment Policy, 2014–19, the 3 appellant proposed to invest Rs. 161 crores for establishing a Data Center/BPO unit in Naya Raipur. Its application was approved by the Empowered Committee/State Level Single Window Clearance Committee, and built-up space (Units 8C001, 8C002, 8C003, 8C006, 8C007, Floor 8, Tower-C, Commercial Complex, Sector-21, Naya Raipur) in an IT-notified area was allotted by Respondent No. 3 i.e. Atal Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran (formerly NRDA), on license at Rs. 2,74,655/- per month vide allotment letter dated 05/01/2018. The appellant was assured of various incentives, including the supply of electricity under the HV-9 (Information Technology Industries) tariff category at 4.50/unit without additional charges, and the allotment of 25 acres of land at a subsidized rate of Rs. 1,608/sq.m. It is pleaded that despite these assurances, the respondents failed to provide timely possession of a fully functional built-up space and to arrange a permanent electricity connection of 2 MVA, as requested on 09/01/2018. The appellant repeatedly raised grievances (vide representations dated 20/02/2018, 02/04/2018, 18/04/2018, 05/05/2018, and others) regarding the non- availability of the electricity connection, service lift, AC piping, water supply, leased line, earthling, and the delay in land allotment at the promised rate. Although respondent No. 2 (ChiPS) acknowledged the appellant’s entitlement to the IT tariff and recommended charging Rs. 4.50/kWh, respondent No. 3 continued billing under the commercial category (Tariff Code 1.2.3 HV-), applicable to “Other Industrial and General Purpose Non-Industrial,” at 10.30/unit. It is also pleaded that the appellant received an impugned demand of Rs. 97,92,822/- for 4 June–September 2018, based on the consumption of Rs. 9,49,660 units at the commercial rate, instead of the promised IT rate. License fee was also wrongfully demanded for March–May 2018, despite the allotted premises being non-operational and basic facilities being incomplete. Repeated requests to correct the electricity tariff and waive wrongful license fees were ignored. Electricity supply was abruptly disconnected on 08/01/2019 without the mandatory 15 days’ notice under Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003, and Chapter 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011, forcing the appellant to pay Rs.40,00,000/- on 09/01/2019 to restore supply. It is also pleaded that the cost of the promised 25 acres of land was unilaterally increased from Rs. 3.15 crores (at subsidized 1,608/sq.m.) to Rs. 4.92 crores (at 2,413/sq.m.), contrary to the original offer. Emails from respondent No.2 confirm that the appellant’s investment plan had included the subsidized land cost. Further, respondent No. 3’s agent wrongfully demanded a refundable security deposit for electricity at 5,500/kVA, whereas the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code (Second Amendment), 2018 prescribes only Rs. 1,350/kVA for such category. It is pleaded that the respondents failed to honour the commitments made at the time of the investment proposal, including the timely delivery of a fully functional built-up space, electricity at the subsidized IT tariff, the land at the agreed subsidized rate, and compliance with the statutory supply code provisions. These arbitrary and unlawful actions have caused severe financial loss to the appellant, leading to the filing of the present writ petition to challenge the impugned demand letters, disconnection of 5 supply, wrongful license fee charges, illegal enhancement of land cost, and unlawful demand of an inflated security deposit. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the present writ appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 426 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The learned Single Judge erred in holding that the appellant was liable to pay the license fees and utility charges strictly in accordance with the terms of allotment, without appreciating that the same allotment letter itself specifically provides that the appellant is eligible for the power tariff applicable to the IT Industry as per the Tariff Schedule applicable to such industries. He further submits that the appellant, through this appeal also assails the demand letter dated 01.12.2018 issued by the respondent No. 3, whereby an amount of Rs. 97,92,822/- has been wrongly demanded towards electricity charges. The appellant further challenges the reminder letters dated 27.12.2018 and 01.12.2018 issued by the respondent No. 3, as well as the levy of security deposit at the rate of Rs. 5,500 per kVA by the Respondent No. 3, which are wholly arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the applicable policy and tariff. 5. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant being an Information Technology (IT) Company, was approached by respondents No. 1 and 2 to establish a Data Centre Unit in the State of Chhattisgarh. The Nodal Agency, respondent No. 2 – Chhattisgarh Infotech Promotion Society (CHIPS), facilitated the 6 appellant through a single-window clearance system with the objective of promoting investment in the State’s IT sector. He also contended that the appellant, upon receiving in-principle approval, was assured of various incentives and concessions under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy, 2014–19 and the Industrial Policy, 2014–19. Pursuant thereto, the appellant took on rent a Commercial Business District (CBD) unit in Naya Raipur from the respondent No. 3 for its operations. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that relying upon the representations and assurances extended by the respondents, the appellant commenced its operations. As per the email dated 08.02.2018 sent by the representative of respondent No. 2, it was clearly communicated that IT Companies, including the appellant, would be covered under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy, 2014–19 and would be entitled to receive the benefits approved by the Secretary, Electronics and Information Technology Department, Government of Chhattisgarh. Despite being eligible under the IT Tariff Category (HV-9), which prescribes a rate of Rs. 4.50/kVAh, the appellant was wrongly charged at commercial rates, i.e., Rs. 10.30/kVAh, by respondent No. 3. As per the Tariff Schedule for FY 2018–19 approved by the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Regulatory Commission (CSERC), the tariff applicable to Information Technology Industries is HV-9, i.e., Rs. 4.50/kVAh. However, the appellant was supplied electricity through a sub-meter connection under respondent No. 3’s main connection, and was billed under the Commercial Tariff Code (1.2.3 HV – Other Industrial and General Purpose Non-Industrial), which is impermissible and contrary to the 7 prescribed IT industry tariff. He further submits that Clause 10 of the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy, 2014–19 defines the functions of the Nodal Agency (CHIPS), authorizing it to take all necessary steps to ensure the effective implementation of the policy. When the appellant was subjected to the illegal and arbitrary action of being charged higher commercial tariffs and denied the promised concessions, several representations were made to the authorities. Upon no effective response, the CEO of CHIPS himself addressed a letter to the CEO of NRDA (now ANVP), directing compliance with the terms and conditions of the IT Policy and affirming that the appellant falls under the IT Industry and is entitled to the applicable tariff benefits. 7. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that despite such a categorical communication from the Nodal Agency and the clear provisions of the IT Policy, the respondents failed to comply with the same. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.08.2025, demand letter dated 01.12.2018, and subsequent reminder letters and levy orders are illegal, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law. Hence, the present appeal. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3 as well as learned counsel for respondent No. 4 support the order of the learned Single Judge and submit that no interference is warranted. 9. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that all facilities and amenities as promised were duly provided. The electricity 8 purchased by respondent No. 3 was billed under the applicable category, and the same rate was passed on to the appellant. No additional demand was raised. License fees were payable in accordance with the allotment terms, and the premises were made available in March 2018, the delay being attributable to the appellant. It is further submitted that the appellant was aware that it had to pay electricity charges at the rate applicable to NRDA, as evident from its own letter dated 25.05.2018. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. From the record, it is evident that the appellant was aware of its liability to pay electricity charges as per the supply through NRDA for the commercial building allotted. This is corroborated by the appellant’s letter dated 25.05.2018. The allotment letter dated 05.01.2018 issued by the Chief Executive Officer, NRDA, clearly specifies that the licensee shall bear the electricity and water consumption charges for the allotted premises. Hence, from January 2018, the appellant was liable to pay license fees and utility charges as per the allotment terms. The plea that possession was given only in June 2018 is contrary to the record and is, therefore, rejected. 12. With respect to the relaxation and incentives under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Investment Policy, 2014–19, the appellant was required to approach the competent authority, including CSPDCL, to claim such benefits. However, the appellant continued to make 9 representations only to respondents No. 2 and 3 and never approached CSPDCL (respondent No. 4) for redressal of grievances regarding the electricity tariff. 13. The demands raised by respondent No. 3 towards electricity and license fees are in accordance with the allotment terms and other governing documents. No ground has been made out to quash the same. 14. On overall consideration, we find that the learned Single Judge has correctly appreciated the facts and the legal position. The order under challenge suffers from no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court. 15. Accordingly, the writ appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan