STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. DEEPAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. Mr. Bhangde waives service on behalf of Caveator. Both the learned Counsel for parties jointly pray that this appeal may be heard and disposed of at this stage only.

(2.) BY the order dated 14-9-1994 impugned in this appeal, 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Dn. , Chandrapur has allowed application filed by the respondent for grant of temporary injunction and restrained defendant/appellant from recovering suit amount of Rs. 19,04,400/- on account of toll in respect of Wardha River Bridge near Ghuggus for the year 1993, till decision of suit subject to condition that plaintiff deposits amount of Rs. 6,21,982. 94 to the defendant within 15 days from the date of the order.

(3.) BEFORE appreciating the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for appellant, few relevant facts may be noted. Respondent, Deepak Bharatsingh Dixit (for short plaintiff) filed a suit for declaration and injunction against appellant, the State of Maharashtra (for short defendant ). In the said suit plaintiff prayed for declaration that defendant be declared to be not entitled to receive any amount more than Rs. 32. 52 lakhs or any other amount on account of toll in respect of Wardha River Bridge near Ghuggus for the year 1993 and that recovery proceedings initiated by the defendant be declared null and void. Plaintiff also prayed a decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendant and all persons claiming through it from claiming Rs. 19,04,400/- or any part thereof or any interest thereon from the plaintiff in connection with agency for collection of toll tax on Wardha River Bridge situated near Ghuggus on Ghuggus-Wani road for the year 1993. The plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendant has constructed a bridge on Wardha River near Ghuggus on Ghuggus-Wani road and on the said construction which was completed in or about 1986-87, an amount of Rs. 1,10,29,809/- was spent. The case set out by the plaintiff is that under section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1958, as amended by the Amending Act of 1987, defendant is entitled to recover by way of toll, the amount which is sufficient to reimburse the construction cost of the bridge. According to plaintiff section 20 (1-c) of the aforesaid Act prohibits the defendant from collecting by way of toll any amount exceeding capital out-lay and expenses for collection of toll. According to the plaintiff, defendant has collected toll to the tune of Rs. 1,67,47,921/- for period 19-8-1987 and 31-12-1992 and the same amount being in excess of capital out-lay and expenses of collection of toll, defendant is not entitled to collect any amount more. It was admitted by the plaintiff that for the collection of toll for the year 1993 (1-1-1993 to 31-12-1993), the plaintiff submitted tender and he being the highest bidder worth Rs. 61,61,000/-, his bid was accepted and he was awarded contract for collection of toll for the year 1993. The plaintiff submits that the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendant relating to collection of toll of more than 32. 52 lakhs, being contrary to the statutory provisions, is null and void and defendant is not entitled to recover the said excess amount over and above the statutory limit. It is not disputed that plaintiff was to deposit an amount of Rs. 2,61,840/- every fortnight towards collection of toll under the contract awarded to him. According to the plaintiff, there was substantial reduction of traffic on the bridge and it was not possible to recover the said amount of toll every fortnight. The plaintiff has submitted that in May, 1994, the Tahsildar, Chandrapur issued a demand notice against the plaintiff demanding an amount of Rs. 19,04,400/- by way of outstanding dues against the aforesaid agreement for the year 1993 towards collection of toll.