MOMIN AHMED @ MOMINUDDIN AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the notification of the Chief Engineer, PWD (Roads), Assam, issued about 30 years back and, to be precise, on 27.03.1983 (Annexure-2). By the said notification, the authority, exercising the powers conferred by Section 9 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (in short, 'the NH Act, 1956') declared the particular bridge, namely, Gangadhar Bridge, on National Highway No. 31 at Golokganj, over river Gangadhar, as a toll bridge w.e.f. 01.04.1983. According to the petitioner, he is a registered owner of the vehicle Bolero-SLX bearing registration No. AS-17-A-5079. He has filed the writ petition for the greater interest of the society. Referring to the aforesaid notification dated 26.03.1983, the petitioner has asserted that the authority has been illegally collecting toll fee, as specified in the said notification, for plying vehicles over the said bridge. He has attributed illegality, on the part of the respondents, in view of the fact that the cost of construction of the bridge has long been recouped and, thus, there is no requirement of collecting further toll for plying vehicles over the said bridge by engaging lessees for collection of toll. Referring to the RTI application, dated 05.09.2011, and the reply thereto, dated 22.09.2011, the petitioner has stated that the cost of the bridge having already been realized by collecting tolls, there is no question of collecting further tolls.

(2.) The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. In the affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6, it has been stated that the Gangadhar Bridge had been declared as a toll gate on 26.03.1983 as per the guidelines of the Govt. of India, in the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways. In the affidavit, the said respondents has brought on record the Annexure-'A' letter, dated 13.10.2010, of the Govt. of India, addressed to the Chief Engineer (NH), PWD, on the subject of collection of toll for the bridge over river Gangadhar, on NH 31, in the State of Assam. By the said letter, it was communicated that the collection of fees for the bridge shall be in perpetuity as per Rule 11 of the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways, section and Permanent Bridge - Public Funded Projects) Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1997'). Referring to the various provisions of the National Highways Act and also the Rules of 1997, it has been stated that there is no illegality in collecting tolls. In this connection, the State respondents have also referred to the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2011, providing that after the recovery of the capital cost through the user fee realised, in respect of a public funded project, the fee leviable would be reduced to 40% of the user fee for such section of National Highways, bridge, tunnel, or pipes, as the case may be, shall be revised annually in accordance with the rules.

(3.) The petitioner has also filed a rejoinder-affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent No. 6 reiterating and reaffirming the statements made in the writ petition.