Dismissed

Freedom Concept School, v. Union of India

Madras HC11 Dec 2015WP/38972/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged Rules 4 and 5 of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008 and a 2010 notification alleging unconstitutionality and inability to pay. The court held the petition lacked grounds and dismissed it, directing the petitioner to approach toll authorities.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with liberty to approach concerned authorities. MP No. 1 of 2015 also dismissed.

Freedom Concept School, Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 11.12.2015

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

The Hon'ble MR.SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

The Hon'ble MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA

¶7

W.P. No.38972 of 2015

¶8

Freedom Concept School, Under Manickavasagam Education Trust, Rep. by its Trustee, Mr.M.Thiruvarul. Poigai, Vellore District - 632 114. .. Petitioner -vs-

¶9

1.Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi.

¶10

2.National Highways Authority of India, Rep. by its Chairman, G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi - 110 075. 3.Larsen & Toubro Krishnagiri Wallajahpet Tollway Private Ltd., P.B.No.979, Mount Poonamallee Road, Manapakkam, Chennai -600 089. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issue of Writ of Declaration to declare Rule 4 and 5 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, as void and ultravires to the Scheme of National Highways Act of 1956.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Karunagaran For Respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Asst. Solicitor General for R-1 : Ms.G.Hema for M/s.Wilson Associates for R-2

¶13

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by The Hon'ble Chief Justice)

¶16

The petition has been filed devoid of any ground work. There is no ground made out whatsoever to challenge the constitutional validity of either the statutory provisions of the Act or the Rules. The petitioner also seeks to assail the notification dated 05.10.2010, but a bare reading of the representation at page 15 of the typed set shows there is no reason disclosed whatsoever except the inability to pay, which can hardly be a reason.

¶17

2.The petitioner will have to revisit the issue by making a proper representation as to why the petitioner is entitled to be charged at a lower rate. The representation should be made to the concerned authorities, as the representation has been made to the Toll Plaza.

¶18

3.We, thus, dismiss the petition with the aforesaid
liberty. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 also stands
dismissed.
Sd/
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(CS-V)
/TRUE COPY/
SUB-ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
sra
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
New Delhi.
2.The Chairman,
National Highways Authority of India,
G-5 & 6, Sector-10, Dwarka,
New Delhi- 110 075.
+1 CC to M/s.Wilson Associates Advocate. SR.NO.66693
+1 CC to MR.R.Karunagaran Advocate. SR.NO.66546
W.P.No.38972 of 2015
CO-VD
JD 29/12/2015

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Freedom Concept School, v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Freedom Concept School, v. Union of India

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

Tmt.B.Thiraviam Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Tmt. B.Nthiraviam Vs State of Tamilnadu

Bhaskar Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs Global Software Limited

S. Nagarajan Vs Government of Tamil Nadu

G.Devarajan Vs The chief Secretary

A.C.Muthukanan Vs The Government of Tamilnadu