Disposed

M/S. Chinar Road Operations and Security Services v. Raj. State Road Development and Consturction Cor. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC5 Jul 2023CW/1715/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions challenging toll recovery proceedings were disposed of after learned counsel consented to an alternative remedy. The High Court directed petitioners to approach the standing committee for a toll calculation decision within 15 days.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners directed to approach the standing committee within 15 days; no coercive action to be taken until committee decides within two months.

M/S. Chinar Road Operations and Security Services Vs Raj. State Road Development and Consturction Cor. Ltd. — Rajasthan HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

(1 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:19666]

[CW-1818/2022]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1818/2022

¶6

M/s Galaxy Mining Private Limited, Through Its Director Sh. Ram Singh S/op Shri Madho Singh, Aged About 32 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 701, Ganga Heights Tonk Road, Jaipur302015.

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., (Formerly Rsbcc Ltd) Through General Manager (Administration) Registered Office At Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalanadoongri, Jaipur Agra Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., Unit-Udaipur Address 74- Ashok Nagar, Road No. 3, Udaipur (Raj.)-313001.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected With

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1715/2022

¶14

M/s. Chinar Road Operations And Security Services, Through Proprietor Shri Praveen Kumar S/o Shri Pritam Singh, Aged About 36 Yeras, R/o A-40, Motikunj, Mathura (Uttar Pradesh).

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

Raj. State Road Development And Consturction Cor. Ltd., (Formerly Rsbcc Ltd0 Through General Manager (Administration) Registered Office At Setubhawan, Opposite Jhalanadoongri, Jaipur Agra Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶18

The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., Unit Chittorgarh Having Its Office At House No. 10, Balaji Nagar, Segwa Housing Board, Seti, Chittorgarh (Raj.).

¶19

----Respondents

¶20

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1782/2022

¶21

M/s. D.s.r Infra, Through Its Proprietor Sh. Deependra Singh S/o

(2 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:19666]

[CW-1818/2022]

Surendra Singh Rathore, Aged About 31 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 32, Tara Nagar A, Jhotwara Jaipur-302015.

¶26

----Petitioner

¶27

Versus

¶28

Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, (Formerly Rsbcc Ltd) Through General Manager (Administration) Registered Office At Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalanadoongri, Jaipur Agra Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶29

The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, Unit-Udaipur Address 74- Ashok Nagar, Road No. 3, Udaipur (Raj.)313001.

¶30

----Respondents

¶31

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1894/2022

¶32

M/s Devdashrath Associates, Through Its Partner Kuldeep Pratap Singh Bhati S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh Bhati, Aged About 32 Years, Having Its Registered Office At 303, Aashapurna Tower, Paota A Road, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶33

----Petitioner

¶34

Versus

¶35

Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, (Formerly Rsbcc Ltd) Through General Manager (Administration) Registered Office At Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalanadoongri, Jaipur Agra Bypass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶36

The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited, Unit-Bikaner Having Its Office 24-A, Nagnechi G-Scheme, Pawanpuri, Bikaner (Raj.).

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2654/2022

¶39

M/s Bhanwar Singh Rathore, Through Proprietor Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore S/o Sh. Peeru Singh Rathore, Aged About 49 Years R/o 31, Sarveshwar Nagar, Shastri Nagar, Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

(3 of 5) [CW-1818/2022]

¶43

[2023:RJ-JD:19666]

¶44

Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd., (Formerly Rsbcc Ltd) Through General Manager (Administration) Registered Office At Setubhawan, Opposite Jhalanadoongri, Jaipur Agra By Pass, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶45

The Project Director, Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Ltd, Unit-I Jodhpur Having Its Office At House No. 810-811, 17E Choupasani Housing Board, Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶46

----Respondents

¶47

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9144/2022

¶48

M/s A.r. Tollways Private Ltd., 18, Kripal Colony, Infront Of Bhagwan Talkies, New Agra, District Agra Through Its Manager Ankit Garg S/o Shri Ramesh Chandra Garg, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Rampura Toll Plaza, Mathaniya, Tehsil Tinwari, District Jodhpur (Raj.).

¶49

----Petitioner

¶50

Versus

¶51

Rajasthan State Road Dev. And Const. Corp. Ltd. (Rsrdc), Through Its Managing Director, Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Bypass, Jaipur.

¶52

The Manager (Road), Rajasthan State Road Development And Construction Corporation Limited (Rsrdc) Through Its Managing Director, Setu Bhawan, Opposite Jhalana Doongari, Jaipur-Agra Bypass, Jaipur.

¶53

The Chief Engineer And As, Public Works Department (Pwd), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶54

The Project Director, Rsrdc Ltd., Unit-I, Jodhpur.

¶55

----Respondents

¶56

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.	Sangram Singh.
	Mr.	Vivek Firoda.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.	Vinay Jain.
	Mr.	Darshan Jain.

¶57

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶58

Order

¶59

(4 of 5) [CW-1818/2022]

¶60

[2023:RJ-JD:19666]

¶61

05/07/2023

¶62

These writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been preferred, in sum and substance, with the following prayers and for the sake of convenience, the prayer clause is being taken from the case being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1818/2022:-

¶63

“(i) the minutes dated 24.12.2021 (Annex.-14) of the committee and the orders dated 30.12.2021 (Annex.15) and 3.1.2022 (Annex.-16) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) direct the respondents to grant exemption in terms of actual collection for the period ranging from 17.04.2021 to 30.06.2021 to the petitioner and further direct them to accept the actual toll collection as received by the petitioner during the aforesaid period.

¶64

(iii) the respondents may kindly be further direct not to initiate any coercive action against the petitioner.”

¶65

Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that there is an alternate remedy. They further jointly clarify that the issue involved requires consideration for calculation of the revenue of toll, for which the standing committee is the body, which is rightly equipped to decide the same.

¶66

Learned counsel for both the parties submit that they have no objection if the matter is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to go before the standing committee within a period of 15 days from today. They further jointly submit that in case the petitioners approach to the standing committee, the standing committee shall pass the appropriate decision after giving proper opportunity of hearing to all the parties, strictly in accordance with law, within a period of two months thereafter.

(5 of 5)

[2023:RJ-JD:19666]

[CW-1818/2022]

In light of such joint submissions, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to approach the standing committee within a period of 15 days from today. The standing committee shall decide the issue of recovery of the said toll tax, after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, within a period of two months thereafter.

¶71

Until such decision is arrived at by the standing committee, no coercive action shall be taken against the present petitioners for recovery of the toll tax in question.

¶72

All pending applications also stand disposed of.

¶73

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI), J.

¶74

5-10-Jitender

M/S. Chinar Road Operations and Security Services v. Raj. State Road Development and Consturction Cor. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Chinar Road Operations and Security Services v. Raj. State Road Development and Consturction Cor. Ltd.

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

Asst.Commissioner,Rajsamand Vs M/S Shiva Marmo Tiles P Ltd.

Tejmal Vs Lrs of Chandmal

Tejmal Vs Lrs of Chandmal

M/S. D.S.R Infra Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Limited

M/S Devdashrath Associates Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Limited

M/S Bhanwar Singh Rathore Vs Rajasthan State Road Development and Construction Corporation Ltd.