https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457004 A public infrastructure concession was examined for compliance with Article 14, public procurement fairness, and statutory authority to levy user charges. The challenge to continued toll collection was treated as a continuing public interest grievance and laches was rejected. The Court found the concessionaire's selection through negotiation without advertisement or competitive bidding to be unfair and non-transparent, and held that the contractual delegation of power to levy user fee was beyond the enabling framework and therefore unenforceable. It also held that the cost-recovery formula was arbitrary and opposed to public policy because it created an open-ended escalation of returns. The offending clauses were severed, and further user fee or toll recovery was barred. en-us Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Aug 2024 19:01:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457004 A public infrastructure concession was examined for compliance with Article 14, public procurement fairness, and statutory authority to levy user charges. The challenge to continued toll collection was treated as a continuing public interest grievance and laches was rejected. The Court found the concessionaire's selection through negotiation without advertisement or competitive bidding to be unfair and non-transparent, and held that the contractual delegation of power to levy user fee was beyond the enabling framework and therefore unenforceable. It also held that the cost-recovery formula was arbitrary and opposed to public policy because it created an open-ended escalation of returns. The offending clauses were severed, and further user fee or toll recovery was barred. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=457004