Dismissed¶32

Knowlege Institute of v. National Highways Authority

Madras HC20 Jul 2026WP/2793/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Toll fee concession; school buses versus college buses; Gazette Notification No.720 -S.O.1178(E); NHAI toll plaza entry fees; Knowledge Institute of Technology Salem; M.V.R. Infrastructure and Tollways Pvt. Ltd.; Salem Tollways Limited; vehicles TN-30/AE-8610, TN-30/AH-8823, TN30/AL-9658; Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus; Article 226; issue no longer res integra; Division Bench W.A.Nos.50 to 58 of 2013 (18.01.2024); Mahendra College of Engineering v. Government of India W.A. No.560 of 2014 batch (25.04.2014); concession exclusive to school buses; colleges cannot claim as of right; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

None. Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions (M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013) closed; no order as to costs. ¶32

Knowlege Institute of Vs National Highways Authority — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None. Writ petition dismissed; connected miscellaneous petitions (M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013) closed; no order as to costs.

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner college's buses are entitled to the same toll fee concession extended to school buses under Gazette Notification No.720 -S.O.1178(E), warranting quashing of the impugned orders and collection of entry fees for its vehicles (TN-30/AE-8610, TN-30/AH-8823, TN30/AL-9658) on par with school buses.

¶26

Court's answer

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench (that the toll fee notification grants a concession exclusively to school buses and colleges cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right), the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted; the issue stands concluded against the petitioner.

¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Madras (Hemant Chandangoudar, J.) dismissed W.P.No.2793 of 2013 filed by Knowledge Institute of Technology under Article 226 seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the toll-fee orders of M.V.R. Infrastructure and Tollways Pvt. Ltd. (Letter No.MVR/BOT/TN02/380, 18.10.2012) and Salem Tollways Limited (Letter No.STL/Tollfee rev/2012-13/29, 31.10.2012) — collecting toll from 01.11.2012 as approved by NHAI — and to have entry fees for its college vehicles (TN-30/AE-8610, TN-30/AH-8823, TN30/AL-9658) charged on par with school buses under Gazette Notification No.720 -S.O.1178(E). Holding the issue 'no longer res integra', the Court followed the Division Bench judgment in W.A.Nos.50 to 58 of 2013 (18.01.2024), which — referring to Mahendra College of Engineering v. Government of India, W.A. No.560 of 2014 etc. batch (25.04.2014) — had held that the notification grants the concession exclusively to school buses, that colleges cannot claim it as a matter of right, and that clear and unambiguous notification language cannot be enlarged by interpretation. Writ petition dismissed; M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013 closed; no order as to costs.

¶1

W.P.No.2793 of 2013

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.07.2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

W.P.No.2793 of 2013 and

¶7

M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2013

¶8

Knowledge Institute of Technology Represented by its Authorised Signatory KIOT Campus Kakapalayam Salem District – 637 504. ... Petitioner

¶9

vs.

¶10

National Highways Authority of India Represented by its Chairman G 5 & 6, Sector-10 Dwarka, New Delhi – 110 075.

¶11

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

¶12

M.V.R. Infrastructure and Tollways Pvt. Ltd., M.V.R. Toll Plaza Kottagoundampatty Omalur Taluk Salem District – 636 011.

¶13

Page Nos.1/6

¶14

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

¶15

¶16

W.P.No.2793 of 2013

¶17

Salem Tollways Limited Vaikuntham Post Valakkuttai, Sankari Taluk Salem District – 637 103. … Respondents

¶18

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the respondents relating to the order of the 3^rd respondent in Letter No.MVR/BOT/TN02/380 dated 18.10.2012 and order of the 4^th respondent in Letter No.STL/Tollfee rev/2012-13/29 dated 31.10.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to collect entry fees at toll plaza for the educational institution vehicles of the petitioner herein namely, TN-30/AE-8610, TN-30/AH-8823, TN30/AL-9658 on par with the entry fees for school buses carrying school students.

¶19

For Petitioner : Mr.Muthumani Doraisami For Respondents : Mr.Su.Srinivasan, Standing Counsel, for R1 & R2 Mr.J.Kannan, for R3 Mr.P.J.Rishikesh, for R4 *********

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order of the 3^rd respondent in Letter No.MVR/BOT/TN02/380 dated 18.10.2012 and the

¶22

order of the 4^th respondent in Letter No.STL/Tollfee rev/2012-13/29 dated 31.10.2012, whereby it was decided to collect the toll fee with effect from Page Nos.2/6

¶23

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

¶24

W.P.No.2793 of 2013

¶25

01.11.2012 onwards as approved by NHAI.

¶26

The petitioner contends that, as per Gazette Notification No.720 -S.O.1178(E), the toll fee concession has been extended to buses operated by schools. According to the petitioner, the buses operated by the petitioner college are also entitled to the same concession, but the benefit has been denied.

¶27

The issue raised in the present writ petition is no longer res integra . An identical issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.50 to 58 of 2013, by judgment dated 18.01.2024 , wherein the Division Bench, while referring to its earlier decision in Mahendra College of Engineering, Attur Main Road, Minnampalli, Salem and another v. Government of India in W.A. No.560 of 2014 etc. batch, dated 25.04.2014 , held that the notification grants a concession exclusively to school buses and that colleges cannot claim the benefit as a matter of right. The Division Bench further held that a school and a college are distinct institutions and, when the language of the notification is clear and unambiguous, the Court cannot enlarge its scope by interpretation.

¶28

Page Nos.3/6

¶29

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

¶30

W.P.No.2793 of 2013

¶31

In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted. The issue stands concluded against the petitioner.

¶32