LAL BAHADUR RAM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by realisation of toll tax for crossing and re crossing over Chopan bridge, situated on river Son in Mirzapur, even after 30 years from the date it was handed over to Public Works Department on 8th Oct., 1956 for realisation of cost of construction, the petitioner has come to this Court.

(2.) Right to realise toll tax, an important part of public finance and recognised by Indian Constitution for compensating government to recover the expenditure made on construction of a bridge etc. is recognised under Toll Act, 1851 read with Tolls Act XV of 1954. But it is not a power which can be 'called in-aid' by the State Government for augmenting its general revenue. Although while compensating for the amount spent on cost of construction the government may realise collection charges and the amount spent on maintenance but it cannot claim to realise interest unless the government or its instrumentality borrows money from the financial institution and agrees to pay interest thereon Jiya Lal v. State of U.P., AIR 1981 All 72, Shanti Swarup v. State, 1982 UPTC 773 and Rajesh Kumar Jaiswal v. Govt. of U.P., 1983 UPTC 314.

(3.) On the ratio laid down in these decisions it cannot be disputed that no interest can be recovered except if the amount spent by State Government has been borrowed from some financial institutions for construction of a bridge and interest is being paid on it. The question, therefore, is if opposite party, namely, State Government can be said to be justified in collecting toll tax from the aforesaid bridge even in 1987. Admittedly the bridge was constructed in 1954 at a total expenditure of Rs. 50,00,000/-. Toll is being realised from it since October, 1956. In 1976 a notification was issued on 2nd June by State Government whereby it was stipulated that toll on any particular bridge shall be levied so long its total cost of construction including interest on the total expenditure on the bridge has not been realised in full. It was this notification which was considered in Jiya Lal's case and it was held that only that part of interest can be realised which has been borrowed from financial institutions. In counter-affidavit filed on behalf of State it is stated that till March, 1987 the State Government has realised a sum of Rs. 3,77,65,452/- as toll tax from aforesaid bridge. It, however, claims that an amount of Rs. 98,27,876/- was still due to be realised. From the break-up of figure given in Annexure-3 to the counter -affidavit the cost of construction, collection and maintenance amounted to Rs. 50,00,000/-, Rs. 6,71,223/- and Rs. 7,75,000/- respectively. And Rs. 4,11,47,105/- has been shown as interest from 18th Oct., 1956 to 31st Mar., 1987 on balance of amount to be realised. Thus total expenditure till March 1987 is shown at Rs. 4,75,93,328/-. Out of this only Rs. 3,77,65,425/- is stated to have been realised. Right to realise the amount of Rs. 98,27,876.00 is asserted on strength of averments made in Para 6 of counter-affidavit which reads as under :-