1966 (5) TMI 69 - HC - Indian Laws

Court upholds constitutionality of toll imposition under Indian Tolls Act, ensuring cost recovery for bridge construction.

Maheshwari Singh Versus State Of Bihar And Ors.

The court upheld the constitutionality of toll imposition at Haronar Bridge under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851. It ruled that the toll levy was within the ... - Issues:Challenge to the levy of toll at Haronar Bridge on the Barahiva Lakhisorai Road in Monghyr District as unconstitutional under Article 226 of the Constitution. Interpretation of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, and its constitutional validity under Article 14, Article 19, Article 301, and Article 303.Detailed Analysis:The petitioner challenged the levy of toll at Haronar Bridge, constructed by the Government of Bihar, through an auction in 1966. The main contention was that the levy of tolls under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, was unconstitutional. The Act empowers the State Government to levy tolls on public roads and bridges. The petitioner argued that Section 2 of the Act conferred arbitrary power on the government to levy tolls at any rate, violating Article 14 and Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution. The petitioner also challenged the notification fixing toll amounts, alleging an excess of power by the government beyond Section 2's scope.The Advocate General countered the arguments, stating that Section 2 of the Act provided guiding principles for toll levy, ensuring a reasonable relationship to road and bridge costs. The Act aimed to recoup expenses incurred in construction and maintenance, not for general revenue augmentation. The court agreed with the Advocate General, emphasizing the historical context of tolls in public finance, indicating a compensatory tax nature rather than an arbitrary levy for revenue.The court analyzed the toll rates set by the government, finding them reasonable and comparable to rates in other states. The government's justification for toll imposition was deemed valid, ensuring cost recovery for bridge construction. The court held that the toll levy was within the government's power under the Act, not exceeding statutory limits or violating constitutional provisions. The court dismissed the petition, emphasizing the reasonableness of the toll restrictions in the public interest, in line with constitutional provisions.The judgment highlighted the distinction between compensatory taxes and arbitrary levies, aligning with the principles of public interest and reasonable restrictions. The court referenced Supreme Court decisions on compensatory taxes and public interest restrictions, supporting the constitutionality of toll imposition under the Act. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments, considering them as questions of fact beyond the scope of a writ petition, and dismissed the case with costs.