T M IJAS Vs. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CASE of the petitioner in brief, is as follows: Petitioner is a contractor. The bridges set at Kumbalam - Aroor are located on the National Highway 47 which is notified in the Schedule to the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Under Section 7 of the Act, the Central Government is empowered to levy fee from the bridges on the National Highways by laying down necessary Rules for the purpose. Accordingly, the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highway Section and Permanent Bridge - Public Funded Projects) Rules, 1997 has been enacted. The State Government is the executing agency as per Rule 2(b) of the Rules. As per Rule 9, collection is permitted through a contractor. Petitioner was the successful contractor. The original period expired and the period is being extended for a period of twentyone days. The last extension is produced as Ext.P1. The extension as per Ext.P1 is from 09.12.2010 to 29.12.2010. The general public was all along against the collection of toll. The construction of a new bridge is over at Kumbalam - Aroor. As the traffic on the old bridge is dense and congested, the vehicles towards north is now diverted through the new bridge. The agreement executed enables the petitioner to collect toll from vehicles going towards north and south and the rate is based on the traffic towards north and south. Because of the traffic congestion in the old bridge, the Authorities have diverted traffic through the new bridge and the petitioner is allowed to collect toll from the vehicles using both the bridges. The members of the public took a defiant stand against the toll collection and quarreled with employees at the toll booth by refusing to pay toll. Ext.P2 series are reports in various newspapers. Reference is made to the Rules to contend that the police is bound to stand guard at the end of the bridge in the case of collection of fees departmentally. Petitioner is collecting fees on behalf of the Department. Petitioner filed Ext.P3 petition seeking police protection before the fifth respondent. The fifth respondent, namely the Superintending Engineer, National Highway (Central) Circle, Vyttila, Kochi recommended protection. Ext.P4 is the said recommendation and the petitioner is before us, seeking the following reliefs:

(2.) WE heard Shri Vinod Madhavan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Government Pleader.