MADHUSUDAN MATANHELIA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri P. K. Sinha and Sri Rajiv Sharma, learned standing counsel for State respondents.

(2.) It is the contention of the writ petitioner that actual expenses for construction of the bridge has already been realtzed. It has also been alleged that the amount of interest and maintenance expenses have also been realized but the respondent authorities are charging tax on the said bridges in an arbitrary manner.

(3.) It is also the contention that the State Government is not entitled to charge stationery charges. In support of his contention, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the decision of Supreme Court in the case of State of U. P. and Ors. v. Devi Dayal Singh, 2000 (2) AWC 1288 (SC) : 2000 (3) SCC 5. The aforesaid decision relates to Galghat toll tax in respect of the Gat Ghat Bridge which was constructed by the Government of U. P. on river Sarju in the year 1968 at a cost of Rs. 39,97,000.00. In 1970 it was opened to the public. On 7.2.1985 the State Government leased out the right to collect toll tax in respect of that bridge to an Individual. On 21.2.1990 in a writ petition filed by a truck owner, the Allahabad High Court held that the bridge having been constructed by the State out of its own funds and not out of any borrowings, neither the interest on the expenditure nor the maintenance charges could be realised under Section 2 of the Act. The High Court found that the State Government had already recovered the original cost of construction and accordingly directed the State not to realize any further toll tax in respect of the Gal Ghat Bridge. A review petition filed by the lessee of the right to collect the toll tax was dismissed by the High Court. The State and the lessee filed separate appeals to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted interim stay of the impugned order of the High Court as by that time the State Government had already recovered by way of toll more than four times of the amount of its initial input. By the time the case came up for hearing, the State Government had discontinued the collection of tolls in respect of the bridge in question.