Toll plaza at km 194 NH-30 lawful; shift order set aside; barriers removed; follow Rule 8 proviso and Rule 9

SC held the construction of the toll plaza at 194 km on NH-30 was not illegal or arbitrary and set aside the HC direction to shift it; appeal allowed. The Court directed removal of any unauthorized barricades within two weeks, ordered the authority to instruct executive bodies to maintain distinct records when invoking the second proviso to Rule 8 within three weeks, and required the authority and concessionaire to extend the concessions under Rule 9. The judgment emphasized the need for reasons or supporting materials to show application of mind where facts are disputed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the construction of the toll plaza at 194 km of NH30.
2. Compliance with Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.
3. Requirement for recording reasons in administrative decisions.
4. Impact of not challenging a related judgment.
5. Allegations of arbitrariness in the decision to locate the toll plaza.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Construction of the Toll Plaza:
The writ petitioners sought to restrain the construction of a toll plaza at 194 km of NH30, arguing it violated Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008. The Single Judge allowed the writ petitions, directing the shift of the toll plaza to avoid the violation of Rule 8 and exempt local residents from paying toll tax. The Division Bench confirmed the Single Judge's judgment, leading to the present appeal by NHAI and others.

2. Compliance with Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008:
The core issue revolved around Rule 8, which mandates that a toll plaza should be located beyond 10 km from municipal or town area limits. The first proviso allows for a toll plaza within 10 km but not less than 5 km from such limits, provided reasons are recorded in writing. The second proviso permits a toll plaza within municipal limits or within 5 km if the construction is primarily for the use of local residents.

The Supreme Court analyzed the second proviso, stating that the requirements are clear and objective: construction within municipal limits primarily for local residents' use justifies locating the toll plaza within these limits. The court found that the construction of the project road from 181.300 km to 196 km within the municipal limits of Patna primarily benefited the local residents, satisfying the second proviso.

3. Requirement for Recording Reasons in Administrative Decisions:
The court discussed the necessity of recording reasons for administrative decisions, particularly under the first proviso of Rule 8. The second proviso, however, does not require reasons to be recorded in writing. The court emphasized that the second proviso's objective criteria—construction within municipal limits primarily for local residents' use—suffice to justify the toll plaza's location without additional recorded reasons.

4. Impact of Not Challenging a Related Judgment:
The court addressed the issue of the appellants not challenging the judgment in Writ Petition No. 4526 of 2013. It referenced the principle from Shenoy & Co. v. Commercial Tax Officer, stating that the declaration of law by the Supreme Court under Article 141 binds everyone, making the mandamus issued by the High Court ineffective. Thus, the finality of the judgment in the related writ petition does not preclude the present appeal's success.

5. Allegations of Arbitrariness in the Decision to Locate the Toll Plaza:
The writ petitioners argued that the decision to locate the toll plaza at 194 km was arbitrary. The court held that a decision is arbitrary if it lacks rationale or is capricious, not merely if it is perceived as incorrect. The court found that the location at 194 km was based on sufficient space, prevention of traffic leakage, and the project's overall design, making the decision non-arbitrary.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the construction of the toll plaza at 194 km was neither illegal nor arbitrary. The direction to shift the toll plaza was set aside. The court also directed the removal of unauthorized barricades and the issuance of directions to maintain records of decisions invoking the second proviso to Rule 8. The appellants and the concessionaire were instructed to extend the benefits of concessions under Rule 9 to local residents. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment was set aside.

---