 filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to remove the establishment of Toll Plaza at Village – Thakurtola, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon in the interest of justice.){kind=link}
The Chhattisgarh High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking direction to the respondent authorities to remove the establishment of Toll Plaza at Village – Thakurtola, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon in the interest of justice.
Shobhit Koshta, Counsel appeared for the petitioner submitted that the instant case relates to the National Highway, which connects Rajnandgaon to Raipur and Bhilai and stretches up to Nagpur. In the said route, there was initially one toll plaza situated at Anjora, subsequently, within a radius of 30 km. another toll plaza was constructed at Village – Thakurtola, Rajnandgaon, District – Rajnandgaon without there being any compliance or justification in absence of any written and reasoned order passed by the respondent authorities, which is in total violation of Rule 8 of National Highway Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection ) Rules, 2008 .
Moreover, in this case, the petitioner also seeks to challenge the illegal levy of toll tax levied on the local resident of Rajnandgaon and nearby areas, as the said levy of additional toll tax is in complete violation of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the toll tax levied by the respondent authorities by establishing a new toll plaza is without any authority of law i.e. rules, acts and there is no justification for levying the additional tax given by the law. Hence, the additional levy of toll tax by the respondent authorities is invalid, illegal and against the provision of law. He submits that for imposing a tax, there must be reasonable justification for imposing the same, however, in the instant case, there is no justification for imposing the new tax and thus, the same is unconstitutional, arbitrary and without any reasonable justification and, thus, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Indian Mica and Micanite Industries v. State of Bihar and others in support of his submissions.
Per contra, counsel for the National Highways Authority of India submitted that National Highway Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection ) Rules, 2008 referred by the petitioner is not applicable to either the toll plaza at Anjora or the Troll plaza at Thakurtola, as both the toll plaza were executed much before the promulgation of the Rule of 2008, rather National Highways (Rate of Fees) Rules, 1997 is applicable to both these toll plazas, as the said Rules, 1997 does not stipulate any condition with regard to establishment of toll plaza. He submits that as per sub Rule (3) of Rules, 1997 that “they shall not apply to agreements and contracts executed and bids invited prior to the publication of these rules”.Further, restrictive Clause under Rule 8 has come for the first time after the promulgation of the Rules, 2008. However, there is a provision in Rule 8(2) of the Rules, 2008, which exempted this rider, which reads as under :-
“Rule 8. location of (fee plaza) (1)…………
(2) Any other (fee plaza) on the same section of national highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of sixty kilometers.
Provided that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another (fee plaza) within a distance of sixty kilometers. “
It has further been argued that the subsequent toll plaza established in Thakurtola, District Rajnandgaon, after the toll plaza in question situated at Village Anjora, pertaining to a different concessionaire whereas the Toll plaza established at Village Anjora pertains to another project and not the present project. It is submitted that according to National Highway (Rate of Fee) Rules, 1997, which was applicable to both the two plazas, there is no provision as to how much distance must be between the two toll plaza. It is submitted that if concessionaire of two different toll plaza are the same, then the distance of 80 kms is fixed from a point at the beginning of first National Highway Section, but the concessionaire of two different plaza are different, then the principle of distance of 80 kms between two toll plaza would not apply. Lastly, he submits that the present petition in the form of Public Interest Litigation is not filed in good spirit and the same is filed just to score personal benefit or to just attract attention of public at large and, therefore, the petition styled as Public Interest Litigation is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.
Having considered the rival submissions made by the parties and going through the record, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice N.K. Chandravanshi said that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that there is no personal gain, private motive and oblique notice behind filing of PIL. In order to preserve the purity and sanctity of the PIL, the Courts must encourage genuine and bonafide PIL and effectively discourage and curb the PIL filed for extraneous considerations.
The Court should, prima facie, verify the credentials of the petitioners before entertaining a PIL. It is also well settled that the Courts before entertaining the PIL should ensure that the PIL is aimed at redressal of genuine public harm or public injury. The Courts should ensure the jurisdiction in public interest is invoked for genuine purposes by persons who have bona fide credentials and who do not seek to espouse or pursue any extraneous object. Otherwise, the jurisdiction in public interest can become a source of misuse of private persons seeking to pursue their own vested interests. Except for stating that the petitioner is a public spirited person, nothing further has been stated about the credentials of the petitioners. The petition itself appears to be vague and sketchy, hence, no relief as prayed for by learned counsel for the petitioner can be granted.
On perusal of the provision , the Court noted that if concessionaire of two different plaza are the same, then the distance of 80 kms is fixed from a point of at the beginning of first National Highway Section, but the concessionaire of two different plaza are different, then the principle of distance of 80 kms between two toll plaza would not apply.
In the instant case, the subsequent toll plaza established in Thakurtola, District Rajnandgaon, after the toll plaza in question situated at Village Anjora, pertaining to a different concessionaire whereas the Toll plaza established at Village Anjora pertains to another project and not the present project and as per National Highway (Rate of Fee) Rules, 1997, there is no provision as to how much distance must be between the two toll plaza whereas, if concessionaire of two different toll plaza are the same, then the distance of 80 kms is fixed from a point at the beginning of first National Highway Section, but the concessionaire of two different plaza are different, then the principle of distance of 80 kms between two toll plaza would not apply. The petitioner could not have put forth any substantive fact to negate aforesaid submission made by the counsel for the respondents.