Valid toll classification and return-journey exemption upheld; higher toll rate failed for the Hindon Bridge cost threshold.

Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 was treated as valid because the statute supplied sufficient guidance for executive fixing of tolls on roads and bridges made or repaired at public expense, so the levy and rate-setting were not impermissible delegation. Notifications issued under that provision were upheld because a general notification could cover bridges of the relevant class, and cost-based classification was held to be rationally connected with recouping construction or repair expenditure. The notification also exempted return journeys completed by midnight of the following day on production of the outward receipt. On the facts, the Hindon Bridge was found to fall below the higher-cost threshold, so only the lower toll rate applied and excess toll was refundable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 was unconstitutional for contravening Articles 301 and 305 of the Constitution or for conferring excessive legislative delegation; (ii) whether the notifications issued under Section 2 were invalid because the levy was made generally for all bridges and because the classification of bridges according to cost offended Article 14; (iii) whether the notifications exempted return journeys completed by midnight of the following day from toll; and (iv) whether the Hindon Bridge fell in the higher-cost category so as to justify the higher toll rate.

Issue (i): whether Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 was unconstitutional for contravening Articles 301 and 305 of the Constitution or for conferring excessive legislative delegation.

Analysis: The constitutional challenge under Articles 301 and 305 was not pressed in view of the governing Supreme Court decision. On delegation, the provision was held to contain sufficient legislative guidance because tolls are levied on roads and bridges made or repaired at public expense, and the purpose of the levy is to recoup the cost of construction or maintenance. The selection of roads, bridges, vehicles, and the fixation of toll rates were treated as matters capable of being left to the executive without amounting to impermissible delegation.

Conclusion: Section 2 was upheld as constitutional and not vitiated by excessive delegation.

Issue (ii): whether the notifications issued under Section 2 were invalid because the levy was made generally for all bridges and because the classification of bridges according to cost offended Article 14.

Analysis: The expression empowering levy on any road or bridge was construed as permitting a general notification covering roads or bridges of the relevant class, and not as requiring a separate notification for each bridge. The cost-based classification was held to be directly connected with the object of the levy, namely reimbursement of the expenditure incurred in construction or repair, and was therefore a valid classification.

Conclusion: The notifications were valid, and the cost-based classification did not offend Article 14.

Issue (iii): whether the notifications exempted return journeys completed by midnight of the following day from toll.

Analysis: The wording of the notification and the corresponding schedule expressly provided that no toll would be charged on the return journey if the outward toll receipt was produced and the return crossing was completed by midnight of the following day. This exemption was held to apply to the petitioners' vehicles.

Conclusion: No toll was leviable on the return journey when the bridge was re-crossed before midnight of the following day and the outward receipt was produced.

Issue (iv): whether the Hindon Bridge fell in the higher-cost category so as to justify the higher toll rate.

Analysis: The expenditure statement relied upon by the State included amounts attributable to approach roads and a separate road from Budhana Town to the bridge. The latter was held not to form part of the cost of the bridge itself. Once excluded, the bridge cost fell below the threshold for the higher rate, so the lower rate alone was applicable.

Conclusion: The Hindon Bridge was held to cost less than eight lakhs, and the higher toll rate could not be charged.

Final Conclusion: The writ petitions succeeded in part: the higher toll rate was disallowed, the return-journey exemption was recognised, and the excess toll collected became refundable.

Ratio Decidendi: A toll provision that is directed to recouping public expenditure on roads or bridges may validly leave the selection of facilities and the fixation of rates to the executive if the statute supplies adequate guidance, and a cost-linked classification for levy is valid where it is directly related to the object of reimbursement.

---