SUSHAN CHANDRA PAL Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the members of the Mindnaipore District Bus Owners' Co-ordination Committee. They challenge a notification issued by the Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal dated 21st October, 1974 by which the tolls were levied with respect to seven bridges mentioned in the schedule to the said notification. A notice in vernacular has also been issued by respondents Nos. 2 and 3 stating that all machine driven vehicles driving from the Deshapran Sashmal Setu near Midnepore and Rasulpur Bridge near Contai were required to pay bridge toll according to the schedule rates with effect from 1st December, 1974. The said seven bridges differ widely in their size, circumference and engineering skill. The cost of construction of those bridges or repairs thereof also widely varies. The cost of construction or repairs of each bridge has not been stated in the said notification and consequently the rates of toll that have been levied, have no correlation to the expenses incurred in the construction of each bridge or repairs thereof. It is stated by the petitioner in the petition that even a bus crosses one of the said bridges only once in one trip it would have to pay tolls at the rate of (one up and one down) Rs. 6 per day and the annual toll would come to Rs. 2,190 which is higher than annual road tax which an owner is required to pay for one single bus. According to the petitioners, the impugned notification is ultra vires of Section 2 of the Tolls Act as it has been made and published without any reference or consideration of the respective cost of construction as also the cost of repairs in respect of the said seven bridges. The said notification is also arbitrary and the tolls fixed are highly excessive, oppressive, unreasonable and are not based on consideration of the aforesaid cost of construction and repairs. Furthermore it has left the tolls to be levied by an unknown authority which is illegal and not valid. The petitioners being aggrieved moved this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and obtained the present Rule.

(2.) The other rules were also obtained by the bus owners of Arambagh and Birbhum challenging the levy tolls with regard to Dwarakeswar, Mayurakshi and Ajoy Bridges. It is unnecessary to state the facts of each individual case, since common points of law arise in all the Writ Petitions. So my order in this Rule shall govern all these Writ Petitions.

(3.) An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of the respondents and affirmed by Suhrit Kr. Deb, Dy. Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of West Bengal wherein it is stated that the State Government has insufficient resources in the budget for catering to the needs of ever increasing public demand for bridging of numerous rivers throughout the State. Hence in order to mobilise additional resources, toll in respect of the seven bridges in question was introduced. The collection of toll from the said bridges is to be utilised for construction of new bridge in the State and the said collections have no relation to cost of construction and/or repair of the bridges from which the toll revenue is earned. In order to mobilise additional resources, a revolving fund known as "State Bridge Fund" has been created out of the revenues from tolls realised from some of the existing bridges. The progressive accumulation in the fund will be utilised for construction of more and more bridges in the State. This has no relation to the costs of construction or repairs to the respective bridges from which toll revenues are earned.