1965 (9) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....State Government and it was opened to traffic from September 21, 1960. Toll is being levied on vehicles crossing this bridge by the State Government under certain notifications issued by it under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act No. 8 of 1851). There is another bridge over the Krishna river at Rajpur Chhajpur and toll is being levied on vehicles crossing this bridge by the Antarim Zilla Parishad. Muzzaffarnagar. In these writ petitions, the levy of toll on vehicles crossing the Hindon bridge alone is challenged. 3. The Indian Tolls Act, 1851, is an Act for enabling the Government to levy tolls on public roads and bridges. It appears that under Section 3 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1864, empowering it to do so the State Government, by a notification dated October, 30, 1956, extended the provisions of the Indian Tolls Act, 1861, to the whole of Uttar Pradesh. The relevant portion of Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, is as follows :  "2. The State Government may cause such rates of toll, as it thinks fit, to be levied upon any road or bridge which has been, or shall hereafter be, made or repaired at the expense of the Central or any State Government ---------------....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on was amended. The amended Schedule divides bridges into three categories :  (i) bridges costing Rupees twenty-five lacs and above;  (ii) bridges costing between Rupees eight lacs and Rupees twenty-five lacs; and  (iii) bridges costing more than Rs. 2.50 lacs and less than Rupees eight lacs. The petitioners ply stage carriages which have a carrying capacity of more than 12 passengers. Under this Schedule such stage carriages are liable to pay a toll of Rs. 7-8-0 in respect of a bridge of the first category, a toll of Rs. 5-10-0 in respect of a bridge of the second category and a toll of Rs. 3-12-0 in respect of bridges of the third category. By another notification published in the U. P. Gazette of July 20, 1957. this Schedule was further amended but the rates for motor buses carrying more than 12 passengers remained the same. On July 19, 1960, the State Government published a notification, which was published in the U. P. Gazette of July 30, 1960, and which reads as follows :  "In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act VIII of 1851) and in pursuance of the provisions of paragraph ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....td. v. State of Rajasthan MANU/SC/0065/1962MANU/SC/0065/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 1406, the attack on the validity of Section 2 on the ground of violation of the provisions of Articles 301 and 305 of the Constitution cannot be sustained I have, therefore, to consider only the question whether Section 2 makes an excessive delegation of legislative power. The contention of learned counsel is that Section 2 of the Act does not itself prescribe the rates at which tolls may be levied, nor does it prescribe the maximum or minimum rates at which tolls may be levied; it does not specify the roads or bridges which may be subjected to the levy and it does not specify the vehicle on which the levy of toll is to fall but leaves everything to the determination of the State Government. According to learned counsel for the petitioners, this delegation of power in favour of the State Government is unlawful as no guiding principles have been laid down by the Act for the exercise of the power So far as the roads and bridges, which are to be subjected to the levy, are concerned, there is sufficient specification in the Act that it is such roads and bridges as are made or repaired at the expense of the Ce....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dges The need of the State Government for compensating itself for the expenses incurred in the construction or maintenance of the roads and bridges is sufficient guidance to make the power to fix rates of tolls valid. Indeed, from the original notification of November 1, 1956, it appears that tolls have been levied on the bridges for the purpose of recovering the costs of their construction. In my opinion, Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, does not suffer from the vice of excessive delegation of legislative power and is not unconstitutional on that ground. 6. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners that arises for consideration is whether the notification issued by the State Government under Section 2 of the Act is invalid by reason of the fact that it has been issued generally in respect of all the bridges in Uttar Pradesh In other words, the contention is that Section 2 merely empowers the State Government to levy toll on bridges individually Section 2 empowers the State Government to levy a toll upon" any road or bridge" I am unable to read these words as directing the State Government to issue a separate notification in respect of each road and e....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 9. II might be mentioned here that, after Shri Khare had finished his arguments, Shri Gopi Nath asked for time to produce a subsequent notification of the State Government amending the previous notifications made under Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act I granted him time, and, he, on the next date of hearing produced a notification dated March 22, 1963 This notification purports to supersede the notification of November 1, 1956, as amended from time to time, and lays down a fresh Schedule of rates of tolls. Shri Khare thereupon prayed for time to file a supplementary affidavit and to make an application for adding fresh grounds to his petition challenging this modification of 1963 also The time prayed for was granted and Shri Khare has filed a supplementary affidavit and an application In his application, he has raised two grounds against this notification, namely.  (1) that this notification was issued mala fide to defeat the writ petitions; and  (2) that the notification was bad on account of excessive delegation of legislative power. I have already dealt with the question regarding excessive delegation of legislative power and my decision on t....