Dismissed

V.a.Azeez, Proprietor, Selmec Engineering Construction v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC8 Nov 2022WA/625/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court of Karnataka Writ Appeal (listed as Kerala in text) disposed of an appeal against an order in a writ petition relating to alleged illegal toll collection at two railway overbridges within 4 kms. The High Court found no error in the lower court's judgment and merely directing the display of toll notices.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications closed.

V.a.Azeez, Proprietor, Selmec Engineering… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY

¶6

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2022 / 17TH KARTHIKA, 1944
WA NO. 625 OF 2014

¶7

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12776/2013 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶8

APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3:

¶9

V.A.AZEEZ, PROPRIETOR, SELMEC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION
MUBARAK BUILDING NEAR CHERUVANNUR POST OFFICE,
P.O.KOTHARA, KOZHIKODE.

¶10

BY ADVS.
SRI.K.M.FIROZ
SRI.S.KANNAN
SMT.M.SHAJNA

¶11

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS & WRIT PETITIONER:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANATHAPURAM - 695 001.

¶13

2 ROADS AND BRIDGES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION KERALA LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, REGISTERED OFFICE AT 2ND FLOOR, PREETHI BUILDINGS, M.V.ROAD, PALARIVATTOM, KOCHI 682 025.

¶14

3 PURUSHOTTAMAN NAMBOOTHIRI, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBOOTHIRI, MEPPAD ILLAM, NANDANAM, KOTHAMANGALAM, KOYILANDY P.O., KOZHIKODE, KERALA -673 305.

¶15

SRI.V. TEKCHAND, SR. G.P.

¶16

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.11.2022,
THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

W.A.No.625 of 2014

¶18

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Dated this the 8^th day of November, 2022

¶21

S.Manikumar, C.J.

¶22

Before the writ court, the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.12776 of 2013 has sought for the following reliefs:

¶23

“i) Declare that the toll collection introduced at Railway Over bridge constructed in Kothamangalam, Quilandy is vitiated by non application of mind to the relevant criteria's and discriminatory and therefore illegal and arbitrary;

¶24

ii) Issue a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 and 2 to stop collection of toll from Railway Over bridge at Kothamangalam, Quilandy.

¶25

iii) Issue an interim direction directing the 2^nd respondent and their agent 3^rd respondent from collecting toll for the use of Railway Over Bridge at Kothamangalam, Quilandy, and pending disposal of the Writ Petition.”

¶26

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:

¶27

2.1. Petitioner is a resident of Kothamangalam at Quilandy. Petitioner and his family undertake frequent journey to Thikkodi from where his wife hails. Earlier, to pass through the railway overbridge at Nandhi, Quilandy, he had

¶28

W.A.No.625 of 2014

¶29

¶30

to pay only Rs.7.50 to the 2^nd respondent as toll but with the opening of the railway overbridge at Kothamangalam, Quilandy, petitioner has to pay another Rs.7.50 as toll to pass through the railway overbridge at Kothamangalam, Quilandy. Petitioner thus has to pay two tolls for passing through two railway overbridges constructed by the 1^st respondent within a distance of 4 kms in the National Highway.

¶31

2.2. It is to be noted that there is no toll collection in overbridges at Vengalam, Vengali and Chengotukavu constructed by the 2^nd respondent. The attempt to introduce toll collection in these overbridges was given up on account of the public protest. With the introduction of user fee at two overbridges constructed within a distance of 4 kms, the petitioner and other road users are burdened with payment of two user fees which is collected by the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd. - 2^nd respondent through the 3^rd respondent contractor. The toll collection at two points in the National Highway within a distance of 80 kms is illegal and arbitrary and is against the provisions of

¶32

W.A.No.625 of 2014

¶33

¶34

the National Highways (Fees for the use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997.

¶35

2.3. As per Rule 7(2) of the National Highways (Fees for the use of National Highways Section and Permanent BridgePublic Funded Project) Rules, 1997, toll collection is permitted only at one place within a distance of 80 kms from a point at the beginning of the 1^st National Highway Section or approach of entry of the 1^st permanent bridge to be crossed under the Jurisdiction of the same executing agency, regardless of number of projects falling within the length in order to facilitate free and unhindered movement of traffic. In view of this provision, a person paying user fee for a bridge constructed in the National Highway can travel a distance of 80 kms. The collection of toll at two points for two bridges within a distance of 4 kms by the same executing agency is, therefore, illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction. The power vested in the respondents are thus exercised without due regard to the relevant criteria. Petitioner made a request

¶36

W.A.No.625 of 2014

¶37

¶38

to the 2^nd respondent to discontinue the collection of toll for the railway overbridge at Kothamangalam, Quilandy since legally the collection is illegal. The respondents have not stopped collection of toll and they continued the illegal collection with least regard to the provisions of the National Highways Act and Rules. The collection of toll by the 3^rd respondent at the behest of the 2^nd respondent for the newly opened railway overbridge is without any authority of law and in clear violation of the National Highways Act 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder. Hence the writ petition was filed.

¶39

After considering the rival contentions, writ court, vide judgment dated 06.12.2013 in W.P.(C)No.12776 of 2013, ordered thus:

¶40

“6. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the 2^nd and 3^rd respondents to place proper display board at both the toll plaza, clearly notifying the extent of toll collection as above, to the notice of the general public, so as to have clarity and transparency, which shall be done at the earliest at any rate within 'one week' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.”

¶41

W.A.No.625 of 2014

¶42

¶43

Though the said judgment is assailed on various grounds, going through the material on record, we find no error in the judgment warranting interference. That apart, what has been ordered by the writ court is only a direction to the Roads and Bridges Development Corporation of Kerala Ltd. and M/s. Selmec Engineering Construction (respondents 2 and 3 therein) to place proper display board at both the toll plaza, clearly notifying the extent of toll collection, to the notice of the general public, so as to have clarity and transparency, which shall be done at the earliest at any rate within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

¶44

For the reasons stated supra, writ appeal is dismissed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand

¶45

closed.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

S.Manikumar Chief Justice

¶48

Sd/- Shaji P.Chaly Judge

¶49

//true copy// P.A. to Judge

¶50

vpv

V.a.Azeez, Proprietor, Selmec Engineering Construction v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.a.Azeez, Proprietor, Selmec Engineering Construction v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sahira, Vs Special Tahsildar (La)

P.K.Markose Vs Uco Bank

Noele John Koshy Vs K. Sanjay Murthy

The Regionalmanager, Vs Bindu Vijayakumar

Balakurup Vs the New India Assurance Co.Ltd.

K.Balakurup Vs B.Retnamma