9911796707
TMI Blog1965 (9) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eing levied on vehicles crossing this bridge by the State Government under certain notifications issued by it under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act No. 8 of 1851). There is another bridge over the Krishna river at Rajpur Chhajpur and toll is being levied on vehicles crossing this bridge by the Antarim Zilla Parishad. Muzzaffarnagar. In these writ petitions, the levy of toll on vehicles crossing the Hindon bridge alone is challenged. 3. The Indian Tolls Act, 1851, is an Act for enabling the Government to levy tolls on public roads and bridges. It appears that under Section 3 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1864, empowering it to do so the State Government, by a notification dated October, 30, 1956, extended the provisions of the Indian Tolls Act, 1861, to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant portion of Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, is as follows : 2. The State Government may cause such rates of toll, as it thinks fit, to be levied upon any road or bridge which has been, or shall hereafter be, made or repaired at the expense of the Central or any State Government --------------- On November 1, 1956, the State Government issued a notification under Section 2 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eight lacs and Rupees twenty-five lacs; and (iii) bridges costing more than ₹ 2.50 lacs and less than Rupees eight lacs. The petitioners ply stage carriages which have a carrying capacity of more than 12 passengers. Under this Schedule such stage carriages are liable to pay a toll of ₹ 7-8-0 in respect of a bridge of the first category, a toll of ₹ 5-10-0 in respect of a bridge of the second category and a toll of ₹ 3-12-0 in respect of bridges of the third category. By another notification published in the U. P. Gazette of July 20, 1957. this Schedule was further amended but the rates for motor buses carrying more than 12 passengers remained the same. On July 19, 1960, the State Government published a notification, which was published in the U. P. Gazette of July 30, 1960, and which reads as follows : In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act VIII of 1851) and in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph 2 of Government Notification No. 5495 (3)C/XXIII-PWA-217-C-58, dated November 1, 1956, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to notify the bridge over the Hindon River at Budhana on Muzaffarnagar Bu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uestion whether Section 2 makes an excessive delegation of legislative power. The contention of learned counsel is that Section 2 of the Act does not itself prescribe the rates at which tolls may be levied, nor does it prescribe the maximum or minimum rates at which tolls may be levied; it does not specify the roads or bridges which may be subjected to the levy and it does not specify the vehicle on which the levy of toll is to fall but leaves everything to the determination of the State Government. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, this delegation of power in favour of the State Government is unlawful as no guiding principles have been laid down by the Act for the exercise of the power So far as the roads and bridges, which are to be subjected to the levy, are concerned, there is sufficient specification in the Act that it is such roads and bridges as are made or repaired at the expense of the Central or any State Government which may be subjected to the levy It was neither necessary nor possible for the Act itself to name all the roads and bridges that may be subjected to the levy Nor was it necessary for the Act itself to specify the persons, vehicles and beas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1, 1956, it appears that tolls have been levied on the bridges for the purpose of recovering the costs of their construction. In my opinion, Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and is not unconstitutional on that ground. 6. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that arises for consideration is whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 2 of the Act is invalid by reason of the fact that it has been issued generally in respect of all the bridges in Uttar Pradesh In other words, the contention is that Section 2 merely empowers the State Government to levy toll on bridges individually Section 2 empowers the State Government to levy a toll upon any road or bridge I am unable to read these words as directing the State Government to issue a separate notification in respect of each road and each bridge. Since the section empowers the State Government to levy tolls in respect of all roads and all bridges made or repaired at the expense of the Central or State Government, it is open to the State Government to make the levy on all the roads or all the bridges b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... next date of hearing produced a notification dated March 22, 1963 This notification purports to supersede the notification of November 1, 1956, as amended from time to time, and lays down a fresh Schedule of rates of tolls. Shri Khare thereupon prayed for time to file a supplementary affidavit and to make an application for adding fresh grounds to his petition challenging this modification of 1963 also The time prayed for was granted and Shri Khare has filed a supplementary affidavit and an application In his application, he has raised two grounds against this notification, namely. (1) that this notification was issued mala fide to defeat the writ petitions; and (2) that the notification was bad on account of excessive delegation of legislative power. I have already dealt with the question regarding excessive delegation of legislative power and my decision on this point governs this notification also the other ground is also without any substance. On a close examination of this notification, it appears that, in so far as the petitioners are concerned, it does not alter the situation at all either with respect to the rates of tolls or with respect to the exemption from p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cost of the bridge but, by no stretch of the imagination, can the cost of construction of the road from Budhana Town to the Hindon Bridge be included in the cost of the bridge. If this sum of ₹ 39,000 is deducted, then the cost of the bridge comes to an amount less than Rupees eight lacs in my opinion, the cost of the Hindon Bridge is below Rupees eight lacs and the State Government is not entitled to charge toll from the petitioners at the rate of ₹ 5-62 P per vehicle which is the rate for bridges costing between Rupees eight lacs and Rupees twenty-five lacs, but it is entitled to recover toll in respect of this bridge at the rate of ₹ 3.75 P from each vehicle of the petitioners passing over it. 11. The writ petitions are partly allowed Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are directed not to recover toll at a rate higher than ₹ 3.75 P from the petitioners in respect of their stage carnages having a carrying capacity of more than 12 passengers for using the Hindon Bridge. They are further directed not to charge any toll in respect of stage carriage or a motor bus on its return journey if the return journey is completed by midnight of the following day and the toll ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
