Compensatory toll levy requires a proven nexus with the burden or facility provided; selective collection was struck down.

A government undertaking operating a warehouse was treated as a person aggrieved because toll collection from vehicles entering its premises directly affected use of the facility and trading activity. The Court also held that a toll confined only to lorries entering the petitioner's premises, while no collection was made from other areas, was discriminatory. A compensatory levy must show a demonstrable nexus between the charge and the special burden or facility provided; mere road maintenance is not enough. In the absence of material showing that nexus, and given the limited scope of collection, the levy was held not compensatory and was set aside as unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the toll collection; (ii) whether the levy of toll only on lorries entering the petitioner's premises was discriminatory and compensatory in nature.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the toll collection.

Analysis: The petitioner was a government undertaking operating a warehouse where trucks and other vehicles regularly entered for commercial storage and movement of goods. A levy confined to vehicles entering the petitioner's premises directly affected the use of the facility and had the potential to discourage traders from storing goods there. On that basis, the petitioner was treated as a person aggrieved by the impugned action.

Conclusion: The petitioner had locus standi to maintain the writ petition.

Issue (ii): whether the levy of toll only on lorries entering the petitioner's premises was discriminatory and compensatory in nature.

Analysis: The record showed that the resolution and agenda contemplated a levy for the larger Chitlapakkam area, but the tender was issued only for collection from lorries entering the petitioner's premises, while no toll was collected from other areas. The Court held that a compensatory levy must bear a reasonable relation to the facilities or services provided, and relied on the constitutional limitations under Articles 301 and 304 as well as the principle that mere road maintenance does not automatically make a levy compensatory. Section 249 of the municipal statute was held to permit recovery of expenses in civil court for extraordinary traffic damage, not to authorize the impugned discriminatory collection. In the absence of material proving the claimed nexus between the levy and the alleged road damage, the levy was held to be discriminatory and not compensatory.

Conclusion: The impugned toll collection was invalid and unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The impugned proceedings were set aside and the writ petition succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: A levy said to be compensatory must be supported by a demonstrable nexus between the charge and the special burden or facility provided, and a levy confined to one set of users without adequate justification is discriminatory and cannot be sustained.

---