Court dismisses PIL challenging fees for Online Queue Management System at border, citing lack of standing.

The court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation challenging the imposition of fees for the Online Queue Management System at the Indo-Bangladesh Border. The court held that the petitioner, an advocate without a direct connection to the export business, lacked standing to maintain the PIL. The court emphasized that affected parties should pursue their grievances through appropriate legal channels. The dismissal was based on the lack of locus standi of the petitioner, directing affected parties to seek redress through proper judicial avenues.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Imposition of fees for Online Queue Management System at Indo-Bangladesh Border.
2. Alleged unreasonable restrictions and exorbitant fees imposed on transporters/exporters.
3. Violation of constitutional provisions (Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 265, 366(29A), and 246A).
4. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL).

Detailed Analysis:

1. Imposition of Fees for Online Queue Management System:
The petitioner challenged the notifications dated 12th July 2022 and 29th September 2022, which imposed a fee for availing the benefit of the Online Queue Management System for transporters/exporters at various international border checkposts at the Indo-Bangladesh Border. The petitioner argued that the fee imposed unreasonable restrictions on trucks carrying goods and was exorbitantly high without any commensurate service being provided.

2. Alleged Unreasonable Restrictions and Exorbitant Fees:
The petitioner contended that the high fee would prevent small-scale exporters from conducting their business, resulting in financial losses. It was argued that the notifications violated Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution by imposing unreasonable restrictions and were also contrary to Article 265. The petitioner alleged that the State's action was against the trade policy and caused undue financial hardship to exporters without offering any commensurate service in exchange for the fee.

3. Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
The petitioner submitted that the State had no authority to levy such a fee, which amounted to a compulsory extraction of money. It was argued that any such charge could only be levied under the Customs Act, and the State had no power to regulate export. The petitioner claimed that the notifications violated Articles 366(29A), 265, and 246A of the Constitution and also offended Articles 14 and 19(1)(g). The petitioner further argued that the levy impinged on the foreign trade policy framed under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade and Development Act.

4. Maintainability of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL):
The Advocate General raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the PIL, arguing that the petitioner, a practicing advocate, was not representing any business community or exporter. It was contended that the levy was optional and only those exporters who intended to avail the Online Queue Management System were required to pay the fee. The court examined the issue of locus standi and cited various judgments, including Kishore Samrite vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, to highlight that a person filing a PIL must have a direct or indirect interest in the outcome of the petition.

The court concluded that the petitioner, being an advocate with no connection to the export business, could not be entertained in a PIL on this issue. The court emphasized that affected parties were capable of raising their grievances in appropriate judicial proceedings. The court also referenced the judgments in Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharadkumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and Others, Federation of Indian Mineral Industries and Others vs. Union of India and Another, and Asian Leather Limited & Anr. vs. Kolkata Municipal Corporation & Ors., which related to the issue of a levy without authority of law but were deemed relevant for affected parties to raise in appropriate proceedings.

Conclusion:
The court upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Advocate General and dismissed the PIL, stating that it was not maintainable. The court clarified that affected parties could approach the competent court, and the issue would be decided on its own merits without being influenced by the observations made in this order. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

---