Cellular Operators to Pay Hiked Tower Fee to MCD: Court, Enhanced Fee of Mobile Phone Towers in Delhi, Cellular Operators Will Pay Half Hiked Tower Fee, Hiked Tower Fee Will Paid to MCD

Top Stories

»	India’s organic food exports register 35 pc jump, to cross $665 million in FY25
»	Crisil projects 6.5 pc GDP growth for India in fiscal 2026 amid US tariffs
»	India, EU must take concrete steps to remove trade barriers: Piyush Goyal
»	90-day US tariff relief will lead to more sustainable trade pacts: Experts
»	India’s exports surge to record $820 billion in 2024-25 despite global challenges

SME Times News Bureau | 23 Jun, 2010
The Supreme Court Tuesday asked cellular operators to pay half the enhanced fee for mobile phone towers to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) in Fixed Deposit Receipts (FDRs).

The vacation bench headed by Justice R.M. Lodha and Justice A.K. Patnaik gave cellular operators three days' time to comply with its orders.

Protecting the interest of the cellular operators, the apex court said the MCD would not encash the FDRs till the matter pending before the high court was decided. The case will come up in the high court July 8.

The operators in their plea said that the MCD earlier permitted the installation of the mobile towers in private properties by charging a one-time fee of Rs.one lakh that was valid for 20 years.

However, the MCD by its order of April 8, 2010, increased the fee to Rs.one lakh per annum.

The operators said the civic agency not only increased the fee by 20 times but the contract's validity was also reduced from 20 years to five years.

The apex court order came in the wake of the hearing of a petition by the Cellular Operators Association of India (COAI) challenging a high court order directing operators to pay half of the enhanced fee in two equal parts.

There are nearly 5,500 mobile towers in the city under MCD jurisdiction and the high court order would fetch the MCD Rs.55 crore.

Appearing for the petitioner association, senior counsel Srinivasan Ganesh said that it was beyond the jurisdiction and competence of the municipal agency to levy a fee that was more in the nature of tax covered under the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885.

He said that the subject matter of mobile phone tower was under the union list, indicating that the fee could only be hiked by the central government.

"This is over stretching," observed Justice Lodha while Justice Patnaik asked: "Are you (the petitioner COAI) suggesting that MCD has no authority to levy fee?"