arise in the Writ Petition. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, a statement had been made by the petitioner that the respondent buses had utilized the service of National Highways by crossing Lechumanapatti toll plaza more than 50 journeys permitted. No details have been given by the petitioner as to which bus had exceeded to 50 trips permitted under the consolidated payment and what was the excess trip made by each of the buses for arriving at the figure of nearly Rupees 45 lakh stated in the affidavit. He would further submit that the said claim is also disputed by the first respondent. He would further submit that this disputed issue can only be decided by filing civil suit by the petitioner not by filing Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. He would further indicate that the judgment of the Division Bench relied upon by the petitioner was made as early as on 03.02.2015 and the petitioner took over as concessionaire only after the said order. The said order indicates that without payment of toll fees as determined, the concessionaire and the NHAI have right to stop the plying of buses. Therefore, he would submit that the petitioner had right to stop the buses for making trip beyond the consolidated payment in respect of each buses. Therefore, the learned counsel for the second respondent seeks dismissal of the Writ Petition.
