ORDER : Arvind Singh Chandel, J. 1. The petitioner in the instant petition had originally assailed the constitutionality and validity of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Erection of Temporary Tower or Structure for Cellular Mobile Phone) Rules, 2010 (henceforth ‘the Rules of 2010’) (which were notified vide notification No.5062/1405/18/2010 dated 24.9.2010) (Annexure P3) as being ultra vires to the Constitution of India and its enactment being beyond the legislative competence and jurisdiction of the State of Chhattisgarh, thus, being violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 245 and 246 of the Constitution of India. This challenge was subject matter in a bunch of 20 other writ petitions, lead petition being Writ Petition (C) No.6324 of 2011 (Reliance Infratel Limited v. State of Chhattisgarh and others) before this Court, wherein, vide final order dated 12.2.2020, this Court upheld the validity of the Rules of 2010 and dismissed the bunch of the writ petitions holding that the State Government was well within its jurisdiction to legislate upon the subject matter under question, by holding that G.B.M. Towers are within the domain of ‘Land and Building’ under Entry No.49 of the State List (List II of Schedule VII of the Constitution of India) and thus the State Government is empowered to legislate upon the same. 2. Another issue involved in this matter is the levy of compromise fee/ compounding fee/settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee imposed upon the petitioner company under Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21). 3. Facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner is a leading telecom service providing mobile-data and broadband services in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh by virtue of a licence issued by the Department of Telecommunication, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India. Respondents 1 to 4 are administrative authorities and bodies that function under the State Government of Chhattisgarh. On 6.6.2006, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Government of Chhattisgarh issued a circular bearing No.2780/175/18/2006 (Annexure P1) and laid down certain criteria for obtaining permission for erection of mobile towers and fixed Rs.15,000 as the one time permission fee and Rs.1,500 as renewal fee. On 6.6.2006, Department of Urban Administration and Development, Government of Chhattisgarh issued a circular bearing No.2780/175/18/2006 (Annexure P1) and laid down certain criteria for obtaining permission for erection of mobile towers and fixed Rs.15,000 as the one time permission fee and Rs.1,500 as renewal fee. Subsequently, the said circular of 2006 was substituted by another circular dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure P2) issued by the same department of the Government of Chhattisgarh. Vide this new circular, the fee for permission as well as for renewal was increased to Rs.75,000 and Rs.15,000, respectively, and further, 15 to 50 times of the permit fee towards the compounding fee. Thereafter, the Department of Urban Administration and Development, Government of Chhattisgarh, vide its notification dated 24.9.2010 (Annexure P3) prescribed rules known as the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation (Erection of Temporary Tower or Structure for Cellular Mobile Phone) Rules, 2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 317-A read with Section 433 of the Chhattisgarh Municipal Corporation Act, 1956 and Sections 355 and 356 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961. 4. The petitioner, vide an affidavit and application dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P6), had duly brought into the knowledge of respondent 1 about its intention for installation of G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai. Again, vide an application dated 15.12.2016 (Annexure P8), the petitioner sent a letter to respondent 1 for installation of G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai undertaking its commitment to abide by all relevant rules and regulations. Vide notice dated 11.1.2017 (Annexure P9), respondent 2 directed the petitioner to file bond papers worth Rs.100 each for each tower site as an undertaking along with a certificate of structural stability. The petitioner was also directed to deposit permission fee worth Rs.75,000 for each tower along with 50 times of the settlement fee for 9 tower sites based on Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010. In compliance, the petitioner deposited the permission fee amounting to Rs.75,000 for each tower to be installed through demand draft through its compliance letter dated 26.6.2017 (Annexure P10). Vide notice dated 29.7.2017 (Annexure P11), respondent 2 again directed the petitioner to deposit the settlement fee as mentioned earlier. Meanwhile, certain correspondence were carried out. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21), respondent 1 rejected the application of the petitioner for installation of 11 G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai Steel Plant Area for want of desired documents. Vide notice dated 29.7.2017 (Annexure P11), respondent 2 again directed the petitioner to deposit the settlement fee as mentioned earlier. Meanwhile, certain correspondence were carried out. Finally, vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21), respondent 1 rejected the application of the petitioner for installation of 11 G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai Steel Plant Area for want of desired documents. Hence, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner company. 5. In their return, respondents 1 and 2 submit that in pursuance of order and circular of the State Government in the Town and Administration Department and according to Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010, the impugned order has been passed and, therefore, no wrong has been committed by respondents 1 and 2. 6. Respondents 3 and 4, in their reply, place reliance upon this Court’s order dated 10.2.2020, which was passed in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions, whereby validity of the Rules of 2010 has been upheld by this Court. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that as the issue of vires of the Rules of 2010 has already been settled by this Court against the petitioner in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions and the matter is already challenged and is sub judice before the Supreme Court, nothing remains for consideration on this point by this Court. With regard to the remaining issue, it was submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 shows that the levy of “settlement fee” is prescribed in an extremely casual manner without specifying the occasions or circumstances when such levy is to be made. No guidance whatsoever has been prescribed even on the quantum of such levy, except casually it is mentioned that it is to be levied 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. No logic or reason has been provided for levying such settlement fee to the tune of anything between 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. It appears to give unfettered power of levy of settlement fee on the Commissioner. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 provides for levy of settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee without providing any legislative guidelines with respect to aspects of delegation of settlement fee, circumstances in which settlement fee can be levied and the manner and procedure for such levy. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 provides for levy of settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee without providing any legislative guidelines with respect to aspects of delegation of settlement fee, circumstances in which settlement fee can be levied and the manner and procedure for such levy. In the absence of such legislative guidelines, the impugned rule provides unguided and uncanalised legislative powers to the Commissioner and, therefore, it suffers from excessive and unbridled delegation of powers and it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Reliance was placed on Corporation of Calcutta v. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107 and The Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Birla Cotton, Spinning and Weaving Mills, Delhi, AIR 1968 SC 1232 . It was further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21) has been passed against the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing to it. Hence, there is violation of the principles of natural justice in the instant case. It was further submitted that till date no evaluation and assessment has taken place regarding the petitioner’s mobile towers and no final assessment order has been passed by the Bhilai Municipal Corporation and without assessment no penalty can be imposed upon the petitioner as compounding fee. It was further submitted that vide the affidavit and application dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P6) the petitioner had duly brought into the knowledge of respondent 1 about its intention for installation of G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai, but, respondent 1 Corporation failed to communicate its decision to the petitioner within the period of 2 months of the submission of the application. Therefore, as contained in Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the installation of the mobile towers cannot be held to be unauthorised. 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 opposing the above arguments submitted that as the petitioner company despite giving various notices did not submit the requisite documents and without getting any prior permission from the Municipal Corporation installed its 9 towers, their installation is illegal and unauthorised. Thus, the Corporation has rightly imposed compounding fee as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010. Thus, the Corporation has rightly imposed compounding fee as contained in Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010. With regard to constitutional validity of Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010, it was submitted that as the validity of the Rules of 2010 has already been upheld by this Court against the petitioner and the matter is still sub judice before the Supreme Court, this Court cannot arrive at any conclusion again on the same point. 9. Learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondents 3 and 4 also supported the arguments raised on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. 10. Learned Counsel appearing for respondent 5 did not offer any submission. 11. We have heard the contentions raised on behalf of the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 12. Before dealing with the issue, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of the notification of 2009, i.e., circular dated 18.11.2009 (Annexure P2) and the Rules of 2010 (Annexure P3). Clause 9 of the notification of 2009 reads thus: ^^9- lfoZl iznk; djus okyk daiuh ij Hkou rFkk tu lkekU; dh lqj{kk dh laiw.kZ tokcnkjh gksxhA fo'ks"k :i ls vfXu rFkk rfM+r (Lightening) ls lqj{kk ds lHkh vko';d mik; djuk gksxkA eksckbZy VkWoj ;fn fcuk izkf/kd`r vf/kdkjh dh iwoZ vuqefr ds LFkkfir fd;k x;k vkSj og bl laca/k esa cuk;s x;s fu;eksa ds vuq:i gks rks mijksDrkuqlkj le>kSrk 'kqYd fy;k tkdj fu;fer fd;k tk ldsxk] ;fn dksbZ eksckbZy VkWoj fu;eksa ds foijhr LFkkfir gS rks lacaf/kr uxjh; fudk; mls rRdky gVk;s tkus dh dk;Zokgh djsaxsA^^ Rules 4, 6, 15 and 20 of the Rules of 2010 run as under: “4. An applicant desirous of erecting a tower or renewal thereof shall submit to the Municipal Office an application in Format-1, attaching thereto the following documents:- 1) Consent of the owner of the building and the agreement with him. 2) Receipt showing evidence of having paid the Permit Fee/Renewal Fee as prescribed by these Rules. 3) In case the tower is proposed to be erected on a vacant land, consent of the owner of the land and the agreement with him. 4) Relevant drawing of the building and the tower for erection of the tower and certificate regarding structural safety and stability from a qualified structural engineer from any of the following institutions:- a. National Institute of Technology, Raipur. 4) Relevant drawing of the building and the tower for erection of the tower and certificate regarding structural safety and stability from a qualified structural engineer from any of the following institutions:- a. National Institute of Technology, Raipur. b. Certificate from any Government Engineering College. No other certificate shall be accepted. 5) In case the tower is in the proximity to a High Tension Power Line the precise distance must be clearly mentioned. 6) Indemnity Bond clearly stating that the applicant will be solely responsible for any loss or damage caused or consequences flowing from any civil or criminal proceedings. 7) Wherever necessary, the service provider must obtain and produce No-Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Air Traffic Controller of the Airports Authority of India. Likewise in case of erecting towers near ancient/historical buildings; NOC obtained from the Archaeological Department must be attached. 8) In case the tower is proposed to be erected within a radial distance of 100 meters from sensitive buildings like Mantralaya, Vidhan Sabha, Chief Minister’s Residence, High Court and District Court, a NOC from the relevant department will have to be obtained and attached. 6. The Permit Fee/Renewal Fee and wherever applicable, the Settlement Fee shall be as follows:- Municipality Permit Fee (One Time) Annual Renewal Fee Settlement Fee Municipal Corporation Rs.75,000=00 Rs.15,000=00 15 to 50 times of The Permit Fee Municipal Council Rs.50,000=00 Rs.10,000=00 Nagar Panchayat Rs.25,000=00 Rs.5,000=00 15. Certificate of permit shall be issued in Format – 2 annexed to these Rules and the Municipality shall have power to impose such other conditions having regard to local conditions. The applicant will be bound to comply with all instructions issued by the Municipality from time to time. 20. If the Municipality fails to communicate its decision to an applicant within two months of submission of the application, the Permit shall be deemed to have been granted.” 13. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 only provides that settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee can be levied wherever applicable, but the entire Rules of 2010 do not disclose that when and in which circumstance the settlement fee can be levied. The Rules of 2010 also do not say how and in what manner the settlement fee can be determined to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. The Rules of 2010 also do not say how and in what manner the settlement fee can be determined to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. Clause 6 of the notification of 2009 provides that if mobile towers have been installed without getting any prior permission from the prescribed authority, but, the installation is in accordance with the relevant rules, that installation can be regularised by levying due settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. The notification of 2009 also do not denote how and in what manner the settlement fee can be determined to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. Thus, it is clear that in the notification of 2009 and the Rules of 2010, the settlement fee is prescribed to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee, but, how and in what manner the settlement fee can be determined to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee is not prescribed. It is also clear that capping of 15 times on lower side and 50 times on higher side is prescribed in both the notification of 2009 and the Rules of 2010. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010 also say that for erection of a mobile tower an application will have to be submitted in format 1 supported by the documents as contained in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010. 14. It was the argument on behalf of the petitioner that vide the affidavit and application dated 8.2.2016 (Annexure P6) the petitioner had duly brought into the knowledge of respondent 1 about its intention for installation of G.B.M. Towers in Bhilai, but, respondent 1 Corporation failed to communicate its decision to the petitioner within the period of 2 months of the submission of the application as contained in Rule 20 of the Rules of 2010. Therefore, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the installation of the mobile towers cannot be held to be unauthorised. A perusal of Annexure P6 dated 8.2.2016 shows that it is only an affidavit sworn by the authorised officer of the petitioner company. Therefore, the permission shall be deemed to have been granted and the installation of the mobile towers cannot be held to be unauthorised. A perusal of Annexure P6 dated 8.2.2016 shows that it is only an affidavit sworn by the authorised officer of the petitioner company. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner was unable to show us any of the application made by the petitioner company on 8.2.2016 before the respondents authorities in format 1 supported by the documents as contained in Rule 4 of the Rules of 2010. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that on 8.2.2016 the petitioner made any application for erection of the towers in the prescribed format before the respondents authorities. Rather, from perusal of Annexure P8, it appears that for the first time the petitioner made an application for erection of mobile towers on 15.12.2016. Reply to this application made by the respondent Corporation dated 11.1.2017 (Annexure P9) shows that the petitioner applied for erection of 12 towers in various places in Bhilai. Out of them, 9 towers had already been erected. Meaning thereby, before obtaining any permission from the respondents authorities, the petitioner, at the time of applying for erection of towers, had already erected 9 towers. Annexure P9 also shows that some of the requisite documents were also not submitted by the petitioner in support of its application. Annexure P12, which is a communication dated 18.8.2017, also shows that the petitioner installed the towers on the basis of permission obtained from the Bhilai Steel Plant authorities. Thus, it is well established that all the 9 towers, which were erected by the petitioner, were erected prior to getting permission from the respondents Corporation. Therefore, it can be said that they were erected unauthorisedly. Hence, the respondents Corporation invoking Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 rightly rejected the application of the petitioner vide the impugned order. 15. As regards imposition of settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee, vide the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21), 50 times of the permit fee has been imposed as settlement fee for the 9 towers, which have already been unauthorisedly erected by the petitioner. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 only provides regarding imposition of settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. Rule 6 of the Rules of 2010 only provides regarding imposition of settlement fee to the tune of 15 to 50 times of the permit fee. Meaning thereby, minimum settlement fee can be 15 times of the permit fee and maximum settlement fee can be 50 times of the permit fee. In the instant case, the respondents authorities directly imposed settlement fee to the tune of 50 times of the permit fee on the petitioner. On what basis and on which grounds settlement fee is imposed 50 times of the permit fee is not disclosed by the authorities. Before imposition of the above settlement fee to the tune of 50 times of the permit fee, no show cause notice was also given to the petitioner nor was any opportunity of hearing afforded to it on this issue. Since compounding fee could be anything between 15 to 50 times of the permit fee, before determination of the compounding fee it was essential for the respondents authorities to give a notice to the petitioner and afford it an opportunity of hearing and thereafter pass a reasoned order. But, this has not been done in this case. Therefore, only on this ground, Clause (2) of the impugned order dated 21.5.2019 (Annexure P21), which relates to imposition of the settlement fee to the tune of 50 times of the permit fee for 9 towers is set aside. The respondents authorities are directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner company as early as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from today. It is further directed that till the fresh decision is taken, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioner. 16. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.