Dismissed

Salem Sowdeswari College, v. the National Highways of India

Madras HC7 Sept 2022WP/17675/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition where the petitioner sought toll concessions for college buses analogous to school buses. Relying on a prior Division Bench order that strictly interpreted the notification distinguishing schools from colleges, the court held the issue was already settled and the petition lacked res integra.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed; costs not awarded.

Salem Sowdeswari College, Vs the National… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED :07.09.2022

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR

¶6

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶7

SALEM SOWDESWARI COLLEGE Rep. by its Principal S/o.P.Veerappa Pillai Kondalampatti Salem-10 Salem District ... Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.The National Highways of India, rep. by its Authority Chairman G.5 & 6, Sector 10 Dwaraka, New Delhi 110 075

¶10

2.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India 212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony Narasothipatti Salem 636 004

¶11

3.M.V.R.Infrastructure and - Toll-ways Pvt. Ltd., M.V.R.Toll Plaza Nottagoundampatty Omalur Taluk Salem District ... Respondents

¶12

Page No.1 of 6

¶13

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶14

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶15

PRAYER

¶16

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of aWrit of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent herein in Letter No.MVR/BOT/TNO2/369 dated 18.10.2012 and quash the same as illegal and Direct the respondents to collect the TOLL FEE for each college bus Rs.1,000/- per month as like as mentioning in the National Highways Authority of India Notification dated 08.05.2009 in Para 7 (iii) in Page 11, monthly passes for school buses Rs.1,000/- per month.

¶17

For Petitioner : Mr.T.M.Ramalingam

¶18

For Respondents : Mr.S.V.Srinivasan for R1 & R2

¶19

Mr.J.Kannan for R3 O R D E R

¶20

The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India

¶21

praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the third respondent herein in Letter No.MVR/BOT/TNO2/369

¶22

dated 18.10.2012 and quash the same as illegal and Direct the respondents to collect entry fee at TOLL PLAZA for each college bus Rs.1,000/- per month as like as mentioning in the National Highways Authority of India Notification dated 08.05.2009 in Para 7 (iii) in Page 11, monthly passes for school buses Rs.1,000/- per month.

¶23

Page No.2 of 6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶26

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are not justified in discriminating between schools and colleges as both the categories are coming within the expression educational institutions. It was further argued that the nomenclature school will also include within its fold colleges as well, for the purpose of concession in toll fee.

¶27

3.The point raised by the petitioner is no longer res-integra. The said issue has already been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide its order in Writ Appeal Nos.560, 561, 563 and 564 of 2014 dated 25.04.2014. The relevant portion of the Judgment is extracted hereunder;

¶28

“5. We do not find any reason to entertain the writ appeals. The notification is very clear. When there is no ambiguity in the words / terms used by an authority, then the Court of law shall not venture to interpret the same in a different way. Admittedly, a school is different from a college. A school student is also different from a college student. The notification is only a concession given to the school students. The appellant cannot seek the same as a matter of right. The power of judicial review in such matters is very limited. The

¶29

Page No.3 of 6

¶30

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶31

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶32

learned Singe Judge, has taken note of the law governing the issues raised, while passing the impugned order and we find no infirmity in the impugned order....”

¶33

4.Following the dictum laid down in the above order passed by the

¶34

Division bench, this Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

¶35

07.09.2022

¶36

kas Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non speaking order To

¶37

1.The Chairman The National Highways of India G.5 & 6, Sector 10 Dwaraka, New Delhi 110 075

¶38

2.The Project Director National Highways Authority of India 212-3/D3-1, Sri Nagar Colony Narasothipatti Salem 636 004

¶39

Page No.4 of 6

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

¶42

3.M.V.R.Infrastructure and - Toll-ways Pvt. Ltd., M.V.R.Toll Plaza Nottagoundampatty Omalur Taluk Salem District

¶43

Page No.5 of 6

¶44

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

kas

W.P.No.17675 of 2013

07.09.2022

Page No.6 of 6

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Salem Sowdeswari College, v. the National Highways of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salem Sowdeswari College, v. the National Highways of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Ramanathan Vs The District Collector

State Rep by Vs S.Sugumar

M/s.Viswapriya (India) Ltd., Vs The Executive Director

B.Ayyasamy Vs The Branch Manager

E.Nainaraj, Vs The Commissioner

C.Muguntha Vs The Inspector General