1965 (9) TMI 74 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds Indian Tolls Act Section 2, adjusts toll rates for Hindon Bridge.

The court partially allowed the writ petitions challenging the Indian Tolls Act, 1851. It upheld the constitutionality of Section 2, validated the ... - Issues Involved:1. Constitutionality of Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851.2. Validity of notifications issued under Section 2 of the Act.3. Interpretation of notifications regarding toll on return journeys.4. Correct toll rate applicable for the Hindon Bridge.Detailed Analysis:1. Constitutionality of Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851:The petitioners challenged the constitutionality of Section 2 on two grounds: (a) it offends Articles 301 and 305 of the Constitution, and (b) it makes an excessive delegation of legislative power. The court noted that the challenge based on Articles 301 and 305 could not be sustained in light of the Supreme Court decision in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan. Regarding the delegation of legislative power, the court held that Section 2 does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation. The Act provides sufficient guidance by specifying that tolls can be levied on roads and bridges made or repaired at the expense of the Central or State Government. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Banarsi Das v. State of M.P., which upheld the delegation of power to fix rates of tolls to the executive, provided there is sufficient legislative guidance.2. Validity of Notifications Issued Under Section 2 of the Act:The petitioners contended that the notifications were invalid because the power under Section 2 should be exercised separately for each bridge and not generally for all bridges. The court rejected this argument, stating that Section 2 allows the State Government to levy tolls on any road or bridge, and it is permissible to issue a general notification covering multiple bridges. The classification of bridges according to their costs was also challenged as violating Article 14 of the Constitution. The court found this classification to be valid and legal, as it is related to the objective of recovering the costs incurred in the construction of the bridges.3. Interpretation of Notifications Regarding Toll on Return Journeys:The petitioners argued that no toll should be levied on the return journey if it is completed by midnight of the following day. The court agreed, citing the original notification of November 1, 1956, which explicitly provided that no toll is payable on the return journey if completed by midnight of the following day, provided the receipt for the outward journey is shown. The court noted that a subsequent notification dated March 22, 1963, did not alter this position.4. Correct Toll Rate Applicable for the Hindon Bridge:The petitioners contended that the cost of the Hindon Bridge was less than Rs. 8 lakhs, and therefore, the toll rate should be Rs. 3.75 P instead of Rs. 5.62 P. The court examined the expenses incurred in the construction of the bridge and found that the cost of the road from Budhana Town to the Hindon Bridge (Rs. 39,000) should not be included in the cost of the bridge. Deducting this amount, the cost of the bridge was indeed less than Rs. 8 lakhs. Consequently, the court held that the State Government was entitled to recover toll at the rate of Rs. 3.75 P per vehicle, not Rs. 5.62 P.Conclusion:The writ petitions were partly allowed. The respondents were directed to charge toll at the rate of Rs. 3.75 P and not to levy toll on the return journey if completed by midnight of the following day. The respondents were also ordered to refund the excess toll collected from the petitioners. Each party was directed to bear its own costs.