Dismissed

Rajendrasingh Atmaram Yadav v. Executive Engineer (Tmu), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Bombay HC10 Jun 2014PIL/236/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the court addressed a request for monthly passes to toll nakas. Finding no provision in the concession agreement, statute, or applicable rules for such passes, and noting a circular applied only to public funded projects, the court dismissed the petition. It directed the road authority to consider the extension of concessions.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; MSRDCL directed to consider granting monthly passes.

Mr.A.A.Kumbhakoni, Senior Advocate a/w Mr.Ranvir Shekhawat i/b Raj Legal for the Petitioner Mr.Vishal C.Ghosalkar for the respondent No.2 Mr.A.S.Bapat, AGP for respondent No.3 Mr.Rakesh singh i/b M/s.M.V.Kini & Co. for respondent Nos.4 and 5

1Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5. The substantive prayers in this PIL read thus:

“(a)this Hon'ble Court be pleased to hold and declare that the decision of Respondent Nos.1 and 2 of not to issue monthly passes to local residents of Kini and Tasawade Toll Nakas, being contrary to the existing policy of Respondent No.5 prevailing on National Highway No.4 as unconstitutional

(b)this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or appropriate writ, order or direction directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue monthly passes to the locals and residents of in and around Kini and Tasawade Toll Nakas in keeping with the policy guidelines of Respondent No.5'

(c)this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus and/or appropriate writ, order directing the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to include provisions for monthly passes to local residents of Kini and Tasawade Toll Nakas in fresh tenders issued by them and consequently modify the tender notice issued;

2There is an affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent Nos.4 and 5 which is the National Highways Authority of India (for short “NHAI”). The stand taken in the said affidavit is that there is no provision in the concession agreement dated 4th January 2012 executed by and between the NHAI and the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited (for short “MSRDCL”) for grant of facility of monthly passes.

agreement, there is no provision enabling the MSRDCL to issue monthly passes as prayed for in this petition. His submission is that both Authorities are public bodies and considering the larger public interest, they should consider of extending the benefit of monthly passes to the local residents. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to the National Highways (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The said Rules provide for grant of discounts as enumerated in Rule 9 thereof. However, the Rules will apply prospectively. In the present case, the Concession Agreement is of 4thJanuary 2002. Reliance is also placed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner on the circular dated 29th March 2005 issued for providing for grant of concession in user fee to the local residents. However, we find that the last part of the Circular clearly records that it will apply, for the time being, only to the Public Funded Projects and BOT (annuity based) projects where departmental collection is in progress. Therefore, the Circular is of no benefit in this case.

4In absence of any provision in the concession agreement and in absence of any provision in the statute or statutory Rules which provides for grant of monthly passes, a writ as prayed cannot be issued in this PIL.

must note here that there is a letter dated 31st October 2006 addressed by the NHAI to the Project Director which states that since the concessionaire is ready to extend additional concession to the local users under clause 6.3 of the concession agreement, NHAI has no objection provided there will be no obligation on the part of NHAI. Thus, the matter of granting concession in the form of monthly passes has been left to MSRDCL by the NHAI.

6Though we are not inclined to issue a writ as prayed for, we make it clear that it is for the MSRDCL to consider whether concession in the form of monthly passes to the local residents can be extended.

Rajendrasingh Atmaram Yadav v. Executive Engineer (Tmu), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendrasingh Atmaram Yadav v. Executive Engineer (Tmu), Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Limited and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Prakash Balu Naik Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Social Welfare, Culture and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Vishnu Balaji Gawali Vs the State of Maharashtra

Dr. Shridhar Khandu Salunkhe Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri. Sunil Sukhdev Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Rail Parishad (N.G.O.), through President, Shri. Bipin M. Gandhi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Santosh Rangrao Gaikwad Vs Union of India, through Secretary, Minister of Petroleum and Natural Gas and Ors.

Shri Baburao Bhimrao Kasarikar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Niyojit Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Rukhi/Walmiki Magasvargiya Grahnirman Sahakari Sanstha, Kolhapur Vs State of Maharashtra, through Dept of Revenue and Anr.

Mr. Maruti Mura Vagare Vs District Officer, Sangli and Anr.

Shri. Ganesh Dnyaneshwar Kamble Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Shree Kshetra Mahabaleshwar Devsthan Trust Vs P. S. Kamble, Teh Desk Officer and Ors.