TILAK RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It was decided to levy toll tax at the place 338 Kms. on National High Way No. 12 from Jaipur to Jabalpur on the road near Jhalrapatan city. Publications were made for inviting tenders. Auction was held. Out of 19 tenders received by the respondents, the petitioner was the highest bidder of Rs. 21 lacs for the period of one year w.e.f. 1-5-1995 to 30-4-1996. He deposited 10% amount of the bid money within 24 hours of the bid as required under Collection No. 3 of the auction. The receipt in regard to 10% amount is attached as Annexure 4. As per the conditions required, amenities were to be provided by the respondents. The petitioner is said to have sent representations for providing electric and water connections, construction of payment of Bitumin and construction of room as well as window which was the pre-requisite for collecting the toll tax. The petitioner had applied vide Annexure 5 for electric connection etc. the Executive Engineer, PWD, NHW Sub Division, Jhalawar vide Annexure 6 dated 24-4-1995 had addressed a letter to the Assistant Engineer for providing the required connections etc. so that the recovery of toll process should be established. The petitioner was informed vide letter Annexure 8 on 28-4-1995 for deposit of further instalments of toll tax i.e. 17.5% as first instalment. The petitioner vide Annexure 9 on 29-4-1995 had informed the authorities that neither the electric connection has been provided, nor any arrangement for water supply had been made and road was in most depilated condition, he requested the respondents for doing the needful so that the post of toll tax be established. However, vide Annexure 10 on 8-6-1995 the petitioner had deposited the instalment of Rs.3,67,500/- as per the conditions.

(2.) It is the case of the petitioner that this toll post was to be established near the new bridge on the bye-pass near the town Jhalrapatan from the road Jhalawar leading to Indore and Bhopal . A bye-pass had been constructed on the said river on which there was a new bridge, however, the old road to Bhopal and Indore that the old bridge continued to be in existence. It is submitted that the matter was discussed with the Government officers to make arrangement to close the old road at least, so far as heavy vehicles are concerned, as otherwise no vehicle was likely to pass from the bye pass and through the new bridge for the ostensible reasons (1) that the road on the bye pass was in a very bad condition; (2) the distance was also longer than the old road; (3) there is a tendency of the traffic to pass through the old road to save amount of toll tax.

(3.) It is stated, even though denied in the written statement, that number of meetings had taken place and even at the time of auction this assurance was given by the respondents to close the old road and the old bridge. The petitioner also relies on a letter Annexure 11 dated 19-6-1995 written by the Executive Engineer, National High Way, Jhalawar Division to the District Collector, Jhalawar to the effect that the bye-pass has now been completed on National High Way and has been opened for the public, it was requested that the traffic on the old road be stopped and the old road be closed so that the toll tax be collected w.e.f. 20-6-1995. The letter Annexure 11 clarifies the fact that the new road or bye-pass upon which the toll tax was to be levied near the new bridge had not been completed till the letter was issued and secondly the old road was to be closed so that the traffic be diverted to the new road. The petitioner again represented vide Annexure 12 on 20-7-1995 stating that the toll tax has not been started as yet and requests made as earlier were repeated. Request was again repeated vide Annexure 13 and again by Annexure 14. It was stated by Annexure 14 that the bye-pass has not been completed as yet. A request was made that the road be completed and charge be given to the petitioner or in case the authorities are unable to fulfil its commitments, the petitioner had prayed that his money be refunded back. The letters of the petitioner were replied by the Executive Engineer on 14-8-1995 vide Annexure 15. Demand was made from the petitioner to deposit the balance of amount, otherwise, the petitioner was told that the contract would be rescinded and any loss to the Government shall be recovered. However, the Executive Engineer had totally failed to elucidate or even reply the demand made by the petitioner in regard to providing of the facilities, amenities, completion of road and closing of old road. The Executive Engineer was again told vide letter dated 22-8-1995 vide Annexure 16 that the road at the bridge is not complete and is not in position even to carry the traffic. It was stated that even the old bridge has not been closed at the place Chandrabhaga. A request was made to complete the formalities so that the toll tax process be started. Once again the office of the Superintendent Engineer, PWD Circle II Kota vide its letter dated 24-8-1995 (Annexure 18) asked the petitioner to deposit the instalments without replying any of the request made by the petitioner or even mentioning of the same. The petitioner again made representations, copies of which are attached as Annexures 19 and 21 and the notices were also issued vide Annexures 22 and 23. The Executive Engineer vide Annexure 24 sent reply to the notices issued by the petitioner but once again none of the authorities had mentioned or answered the grievance being made by the petitioner. The petitioner was called for discussion in the office of the Chief Engineer on 15-1-1996 vide Annexure 25 and it was for the first time that the petitioner was told vide letter Annexure 28 dated 31-1-997 that there was no decision to close the old road and thus the request of the petitioner to close the old road was rejected and on the same date vide Annexure 29 the petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 13,44,050/- including the interest of Rs.85,050/- and vide another order Annexure 30 he was issued a notice to the effect that the petitioner was liable to pay the amount till the new auction is held. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the action of the respondents in ordering the recovery with the prayer for quashing the order Annexure 29 and/or the refund of the instalments made by the petitioner towards security and instalments along with interest. The petitioner had already deposited Rs. 5,77,500/-.