Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Delhi · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5 (DEL)

INDUS TOWERS LIMITED v. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS

W.P.(C)/4087/2026 · 2026-03-30

Amit Bansal

Writ Petition (Civil)body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

W.P.(C) 4087/2026 $~60 & 67 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 60. + W.P.(C) 4087/2026 with CM APPL. 20020/2026 INDUS TOWERS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Goyal, Mr. Tanveet Kaur and Ms. Deepa Rathore, Advocates for R-1 to R-3. 67. + W.P.(C) 4119/2026 with CM APPL. 20108/2026 INDUS TOWERS LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber and Mr. Nikunj Arora, Advocates. versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Goyal, Mr. Tanveet Kaur and Ms. Deepa Rathore, Advocates for R-1 to R-3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL O R D E R % 30.03.2026 1. The present writ petitions have been filed seeking quashing of the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 16:09:25 W.P.(C) 4087/2026 Show Cause Notices dated 4th November, 2025. In terms of the aforesaid Show Cause Notices, the petitioner has been called upon to pay license fee in terms of Section 417 of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (hereinafter ‘DMC Act’). 2. Mr. Ankur Chhibber, counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not liable to pay any license fee in terms of Section 417 of the DMC Act. Replies to the said Demand Notices have been sent belatedly on 25th March, 2026. 3. Clearly, the aforesaid replies are yet to be considered by the respondent/MCD. Therefore, in my opinion, the present writ petitions are premature. 4. In view thereof, the present writ petitions are disposed of, while directing the respondent/MCD to pass a speaking order based on the replies filed on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Needless to state, in the event MCD is of the opinion that the petitioner is liable to pay license fee under Section 417 of the DMC Act, reasonable time would be given to the petitioner to pay. 6. Pending applications also stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J MARCH 30, 2026 Vivek/- This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 01/04/2026 at 16:09:25