2004 (4) TMI 624 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the notification dated 28th February, 2003.
2. Entitlement and period of toll collection by respondent No. 5.
3. Alleged undue benefits to respondent No. 5.
4. Compliance with the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958.
5. Validity of increased toll rates from 1st March, 2003.
6. Petitioner's standing and claims of being an affected party.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Notification Dated 28th February, 2003:
The petitioner challenged the notification dated 28th February, 2003, which allowed respondent No. 5 to collect toll at increased rates. The court found that the increase in toll rates after three years was in accordance with tender condition No. 8.2, which stated, "The rates of toll shall be increased after every three years." The initial notification issued on 28th February, 2000, mistakenly showed the same toll rates for the entire period due to an oversight. This mistake was rectified by the notification dated 28th February, 2003, permitting the increase in toll rates.

2. Entitlement and Period of Toll Collection by Respondent No. 5:
The court noted that respondent No. 5 was awarded the contract under the "Build, Operate and Transfer" (BOT) scheme, which allowed it to collect toll until 3rd December, 2005. The construction was completed within 11 months and 18 days, ahead of the two-year period stipulated in the agreement. As per the terms, respondent No. 5 was entitled to start toll collection immediately upon completion of the construction. The court found no illegality in allowing respondent No. 5 to collect toll during the construction period and up to the specified date.

3. Alleged Undue Benefits to Respondent No. 5:
The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 5 had been granted undue benefits by the state authorities. The court, however, found no evidence of undue or undeserving benefits being conferred upon respondent No. 5. The toll collection was in line with the terms of the agreement, and the figures submitted by respondent No. 5 showed that it had not yet recovered the total "capital outlay" and was still incurring losses. The court emphasized that it would not disbelieve the figures provided by a public authority unless there was clear evidence of arbitrariness.

4. Compliance with the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958:
The court examined Section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, which authorizes the state government to impose tolls on motor vehicles passing over a bridge or through a tunnel constructed, repaired, improved, or strengthened. The court found that the BOT scheme and the toll collection by respondent No. 5 were in consonance with the provisions of the Act. The Act allows for the recovery of the total capital outlay, including costs of construction, maintenance, and reasonable returns.

5. Validity of Increased Toll Rates from 1st March, 2003:
The court upheld the validity of the increased toll rates from 1st March, 2003, as per the revised notification dated 28th February, 2003. The increase was in accordance with the tender condition that allowed for toll rate increments every three years. The court found that the initial notification's oversight was promptly addressed by respondent No. 5, which had informed the state authorities about the mistake and requested a corrigendum.

6. Petitioner's Standing and Claims of Being an Affected Party:
The petitioner claimed to be an affected party as he frequently traveled to Sangli District for business purposes and had to pay the toll. The court acknowledged the petitioner's standing but found no merit in his claims. The court noted that the petitioner's arguments did not substantiate any illegality or arbitrariness in the toll collection process.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the petition lacked substance and dismissed it. The toll collection by respondent No. 5 was found to be legal, in accordance with the agreement and the provisions of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958. The court emphasized that there was no undue benefit conferred upon respondent No. 5, and the increased toll rates were justified. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.