TRANSPORT BADAMAKAN HORPET Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE writ petitions involve common questions. For the sake of convenience reference will be made to the facts in W.P.No.7693/2011 filed by SMST Transport and others, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to grant the following reliefs:

(2.) SRI D.L.N. Rao, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Smt. S.R. Anuradha, firstly contended that the impugned orders are arbitrary and illegal. Secondly, S.48 - A of the Karnataka Highways Act, 1964 (for short 'the Act') empowers the State to collect toll fee on all vehicles plying on bridges, causeways and tunnels and the Act does not empower the State to collect toll fee for usage of State Highways/Roads. Thirdly, the toll amount levied is in nature of a fee and therefore, there has to be an element of quid pro quo i.e., there has to be a corresponding service to be provided by the State Government. He submitted that the petitioners use the highways for transportation of iron ore and in view of ceiling / maximum amount prescribed under S.48 -A of the Act, the impugned order is illegal. Fourthly, the power having been conferred by the Act upon the State Government and the Act also having prescribed the procedure for exercise of the power, such power can only be exercised in the manner prescribed by law and not otherwise. He submitted that Annexures -B and E having not been published in the Gazette, they can have no legal effect. Lastly, the impugned orders are violative of Articles 14, 301 and 304 of the Constitution. He submitted that apart from discrimination, there is restriction with the rights of lorries carrying on iron ore alone for free movement and by virtue of the impugned order, there is also violation of Article 21 of the Constitution.

(3.) SRIYUTHS K.N. Phanindra and M.M. Swamy, learned advocates for the other writ petitioners, adopted the arguments advanced by Sri D.L.N. Rao.