Compensatory toll levy upheld where the statute confined charges to government-funded roads and bridges and rates stayed reasonable.

Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 was described as conferring a constitutionally valid power because the Act's scheme limits tolls to roads and bridges made or repaired at government expense, supplying sufficient legislative guidance. The levy was treated as a compensatory charge with an implied quid pro quo, not an unrestricted revenue measure, so Articles 14 and 19 were not violated. The toll notification was also upheld because the rates were found reasonable, the levy imposed only a permissible restriction on movement, and the challenge under Articles 301 and 303 failed in light of Article 305 protecting existing law.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 conferred arbitrary and unguided power on the State Government to levy tolls and was therefore unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution. (ii) Whether the notification fixing the toll rates exceeded the statutory power or otherwise violated Articles 19, 301 and 303 of the Constitution.

Issue (i): Whether Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 conferred arbitrary and unguided power on the State Government to levy tolls and was therefore unconstitutional under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The expression "toll" was treated as having a settled meaning in public finance, namely a levy connected with the construction, repair and maintenance of roads and bridges and with recovery of the relevant cost within a reasonable time. Section 2, read with the scheme of the Act, was held to supply sufficient legislative guidance by limiting tolls to roads and bridges made or repaired at governmental expense. The levy was treated as having the character of a compensatory charge with an implied quid pro quo element and not as an unrestricted power to raise general revenue. On that basis, the possibility of misuse did not render the provision invalid.

Conclusion: Section 2 was held constitutional and not violative of Articles 14 or 19.

Issue (ii): Whether the notification fixing the toll rates exceeded the statutory power or otherwise violated Articles 19, 301 and 303 of the Constitution.

Analysis: The rates were found to be reasonable on the materials before the Court, and the levy was treated as compensatory rather than excessive. The levy was held to impose only a reasonable restriction on movement, protected by Article 19(5). The challenge under Articles 301 and 303 was repelled on the footing that the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 was an existing law, and therefore the levy was saved by Article 305. The Court also found no basis to hold that the Government had acted beyond the authority conferred by Section 2.

Conclusion: The notification was upheld and the constitutional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The toll levy was sustained in full, and the writ petition was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory toll levy is valid where the enactment itself supplies adequate guidance by confining the levy to roads or bridges made or repaired at governmental expense, and a compensatory toll fixed within reasonable limits is not unconstitutional merely because it supports public revenue.

---