The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld that entitlement to concessional tariffs and incentives under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Investment Policy does not arise automatically from policy assurances unless such benefits are formally granted and reflected in governing allotment terms; deviation from the agreed supply arrangements or non-approach to competent authorities weakens such claims. This judgment affirms existing precedent, reinforcing that individual agreements and procedural compliance govern enforceability of State investment incentives in the IT/ITES sector. Provides binding authority for Chhattisgarh subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WA/781/2025 of CYFUTURE INDIA PVT. LTD., Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010405692025 |
| Date of Registration | 29-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble The Chief Justice, Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms order of Single Judge in WPC No. 426 of 2019 |
| Type of Law | Administrative law, contract, regulatory, government incentive policies |
| Questions of Law | Whether policy assurances and nodal agency recommendations confer a legally enforceable right to incentives and concessional tariffs in absence of formal grant and in deviation from allotment terms. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that mere policy assurances or communications from agencies like CHiPS do not per se bind the implementing authorities or confer an enforceable right unless the benefit is formally granted by competent authorities, and reflected in the actual allotment and supply documents. The appellant was liable to pay charges as per the allotment letter and was aware of the applicable terms, as corroborated by its own correspondence. The appellant did not approach the competent electrical supply authority for tariff redressal, and instead made representations to the wrong agencies. Authority to claim incentives lies with specific procedures and authorities; mere expectational reliance is insufficient. The division bench found no illegality or irregularity in the Single Judge’s decision. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant, a data centre/IT company, was allotted built-up space in Naya Raipur for operations and promised certain incentives under State IT Policy, including concessional electricity and land rates. Grievances arose over non-receipt of promised facilities and concessional tariffs; the appellant was billed at commercial rates and issued demand letters. The appellant did not formally apply to the competent power company for industrial rates, but challenged the demands in a writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge and affirmed in intra-court appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, particularly on administrative enforcement of incentive policies |
| Follows | Affirms reasoning and outcome of Single Judge in WPC No. 426 of 2019 |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that enforceable legal rights to State policy incentives (e.g., concessional tariff) arise only upon formal grant by designated authorities and reflected in allotment terms, not from mere policy announcements or agency communications.
- Imposes a requirement on beneficiaries to approach the competent authority (such as the State Electricity Distribution Company) for redressal, not merely the nodal or licensing agencies.
- Demonstrates that court will strictly enforce contractual and procedural terms in investment/incentive disputes; representations and internal communications by nodal agency/State are insufficient by themselves.
- Lawyers must advise clients to secure express, formal approvals for incentives and ensure compliance with procedural requirements before challenging adverse demands or charges.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court first examined the terms of allotment and appellant’s correspondence, establishing the appellant’s knowledge and acceptance of electricity and utility charges as per the allotment, specifically from the main supply line under the respondent authority.
- The Division Bench noted that any claim for concessional tariff or incentives under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy must be formally made to and approved by the competent authority—the supply company (CSPDCL)—not merely to the investment promotion agency or land allotting authority.
- Policy communications and recommendations (including those from CHiPS) or email assurances did not override or modify the binding terms of the contract between appellant and respondent No. 3.
- The Court highlighted that the appellant never approached the electricity supply company for tariff realignment, which is a mandatory procedural requirement for claiming incentives.
- As all facilities provided and billing were in accordance with the contract and relevant documents, and there was neither illegality nor jurisdictional error in the respondent’s actions, the Single Judge’s dismissal was found to be proper and warranted affirmation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant)
- The appellant was promised incentives under the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy, including concessional power tariffs and subsidized land rates.
- Allotment letter and communication from nodal agency (CHIPS) confirmed eligibility for the IT industry tariff (Rs. 4.50/kVAh), but the appellant was billed at higher commercial rates.
- The authority’s demand letters and security deposit demands are arbitrary and illegal, contrary to policy and specific recommendations from the State’s nodal agency.
- The order of the Single Judge failed to appreciate these entitlements and contractual expectations, and is therefore liable to be set aside.
Respondents
- All facilities and amenities were provided as promised in the terms of the allotment.
- Electricity bills were raised in accordance with the rate at which the respondent authorities procured supply; same rate passed on to the appellant.
- License fees and utility costs were due as per the terms, and possession of the premises was made available on schedule; any delays were attributable to the appellant.
- The appellant was aware of and agreed to pay charges as per NRDA’s (now ANVP) terms and did not approach the competent electricity supplier for change of tariff category.
- The Single Judge correctly applied the facts and the law; no interference was warranted.
Factual Background
The appellant, a major IT/Data Centre company, sought to invest in Chhattisgarh’s Naya Raipur under the State’s Electronics, IT & ITeS Investment Policy, 2014–19. Pursuant to policy invitations and committee approval, the appellant was allotted built-up space in an IT-notified area on monthly license. The appellant claimed to be promised several incentives, including concessional electricity rates and subsidized land, but alleged that these were not honoured—most notably, it was charged higher commercial electricity tariffs instead of the promised IT industry rate, and was billed for non-operational premises and required to pay an elevated security deposit. After multiple representations to the nodal agency and authorities, and with no relief, the appellant challenged these demands in a writ petition, which was dismissed by a Single Judge. The present intra-court appeal is from that dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- The Court referred to and interpreted the terms of the Electronics, IT & ITeS Policy, 2014–19, particularly in relation to the allocation and grant of incentives and the functions of the nodal agency (CHiPS).
- Reliance was placed on allotment letters and utility billing practices as per applicable local statutes and supply codes (e.g., Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011).
- Section 56 of the Electricity Act, 2003 and Chapter 10 of the Chhattisgarh State Electricity Supply Code, 2011, were referenced in relation to the procedure for disconnection of power supply and notice requirements.
- The Policy’s implementation mechanism requires the beneficiary to approach the competent body (CSPDCL) for redress, and that incentives become binding only upon formal grant and reflection in allotment documents.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring judgment was rendered; both judges concurred in the reasoning and conclusion.
Procedural Innovations
None noted in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.