LAWS(ORI)-2016-3-59

KALIPADA MISHRA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS

Decided On March 31, 2016
Kalipada Mishra Appellant
V/S
State of Odisha and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J. The petitioner, claiming to be a Senior Journalist and a Social Activist, has filed this petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties with regard to the action taken for abolition of the prevailing system of toll collection by demolishing the check gates and further seeking for a direction to restore all the 26 check gates and allow to operate as before.

(2.) The short facts of the case, in hand, are that the check gates have been established to collect taxes from the commuting vehicles in the inter-State and intra-District borders in order to enhance the revenue collection for the State. But the Senior Officials of the State passed a resolution on 17.2.2016 for abolition of prevailing system of toll collection by demolition of existing check gates by 1.4.2016 and decision has been taken for introduction of interceptor vehicles fitted with GPS for collection of taxes. For development and modernization of the check gates, though huge public money has been spent, because of the decision to abolish the same, there is colossal wastage of public money and it affects the public at large. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr. C. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that if the check gates are abolished, there is every chance of evasion of taxes, which would cause loss of revenue for the State. For development of four major unified check gates, an amount of not less than 150 crores have been spent. The petitioner has also doubt with regard to the collection of tolls from the thousands of commuting trucks every day by engagement of few interceptor vehicle fitted with GPS. It is also stated that the plan and action for demolition of the gates is being directed vis- -vis introduction of GST (Goods and Service Tax) system when GST has not seen the light of the day and thus, it is stated that such action cannot sustain in the eye of law.