Court rules toll collection discriminatory, not genuinely compensatory. Writ petition allowed, order set aside. Emphasizes uniform toll application.

The court found the toll collection by the first respondent to be discriminatory and not genuinely compensatory. The writ petition was allowed, setting aside the impugned order. The court emphasized the need for uniform application of tolls and avoidance of targeting specific entities unfairly.

---

---

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the toll collection by the first respondent.
2. Discrimination in the toll collection process.
3. Compensatory nature of the toll.
4. Petitioner's locus standi to file the writ petition.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Toll Collection by the First Respondent:

The petitioner challenged the proceedings of the first respondent regarding the tender/auction for toll collection for lorry entry at Central Warehouse, Chitlapakkam, Chennai. The petitioner argued that the first respondent had no right to collect toll from vehicles entering the petitioner's premises and that the imposition of such entry tax was unjust and unreasonable. The first respondent countered that toll collection had been ongoing for over 30 years, supported by records from the Chitlapakkam Town Panchayat dating back to 1989. The respondent justified the toll as a compensatory measure for road repairs necessitated by heavy traffic due to the petitioner's operations.

2. Discrimination in the Toll Collection Process:

The petitioner contended that the toll collection was discriminatory as it targeted only vehicles entering their premises, despite the General Council's resolution indicating a broader scope for the entire Chitlapakkam area. The court noted that the agenda for the Council meeting suggested a general levy for the Chitlapakkam area, but the tender was specifically for vehicles entering the petitioner's warehouse. This selective application was deemed discriminatory. The court emphasized that the toll collection should not be limited to the petitioner's premises alone if it was genuinely compensatory.

3. Compensatory Nature of the Toll:

The first respondent argued that the toll was compensatory, intended to cover the costs of frequent road repairs due to heavy traffic from the petitioner's warehouse. The court referenced several judgments, including ITC Limited Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and State of Karnataka Vs. Hansa Corporation, which clarified that compensatory taxes must be commensurate with the services rendered. The court found that the toll amount of Rs. 30,000/- did not align with the alleged repair expenses, indicating that the toll was not genuinely compensatory. The court stressed that compensatory taxes should not exceed the cost of the facilities provided and should not be used to augment general revenue.

4. Petitioner's Locus Standi to File the Writ Petition:

The first respondent claimed that the petitioner had no locus standi as they were not directly paying the toll; it was the vehicle owners who bore the cost. However, the court recognized the petitioner as an aggrieved party, noting that the toll collection could discourage traders from using the petitioner's warehouse, thereby causing prejudice. The court affirmed that the petitioner, being a Central Warehousing Corporation, had the standing to challenge the toll collection.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the toll collection by the first respondent was discriminatory and not compensatory in nature. The impugned order was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed. The court emphasized that the toll should be applied uniformly if it is to be considered compensatory and should not target specific entities unfairly.

---