The writ petition was brought by WorldLink Communications Ltd., Lalitpur, through its authorised managing director Laxman Yadav, against the Nepal Telecommunications Authority, its regulatory and management branch, and the Ministry of Information and Communications. The petition invoked the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction under Article 133(2) and (3) of the Constitution.
WorldLink argued that it had been operating under authorisations issued under the Telecommunications Act, 2053 and the Telecommunications Regulations, 2054, and had regularly paid taxes, revenue and regulatory fees. It challenged the Authority’s demand for royalty and Rural Telecommunications Development Fund (RTDF) contributions for earlier fiscal years, and alleged that the demand affected renewal of its internet service licence and other approvals.
The legal issue centred on the revenue base for royalty and RTDF. Rule 26 of the Telecommunications Regulations requires licensees to pay royalty at four percent of annual gross revenue, excluding indirect taxes and proceeds from the sale of telecommunications equipment. The RTDF framework requires licensees to deposit two percent of annual telecom-service revenue into the fund.
The Authority treated income such as monitoring and technical support charges, annual maintenance charges, installation charges and relocation charges as revenue connected with internet and telecommunications services. The record notes that while fixed wired broadband services may receive a concession on telecommunications service charge, no clear waiver or exemption was identified for royalty or RTDF on the disputed income items.
The Auditor General’s reports and Public Accounts Committee directions were also relied on in the record. The committee directed collection of outstanding royalty and RTDF amounts and specifically addressed support, annual maintenance and monitoring charges. On that basis, the Authority and related agencies repeatedly instructed collection of the amounts considered due.
The record states that correspondence by the Ministry and the Authority was lawful, and that the petitioner had not clearly identified which ministry actions violated its constitutional or legal rights. It further records that support and maintenance charges were confirmed as liable for royalty and RTDF, leading to the conclusion that the writ petition was dismissible and that the outstanding royalty and RTDF demands were to be enforced under the applicable legal framework.