Date:17/12/2008 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/2008/12/17/stories/2008121760260800.htm

Tamil Nadu

Collection of toll on Rajiv Gandhi Salai challenged

Special Correspondent

“Tamil Nadu Highways Act does not have legislative provision to collect a fee”

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday directed the Tamil Nadu government to file counter to a public interest litigation petition challenging a G.O. that enables collection of toll on Rajiv Gandhi Salai (OMR) by I.T.Expressway Ltd, a subsidiary of the Tamil Nadu Road Development Company, pursuant to an agreement with the State government.

The challenge in the petition, filed by R.Sureshkumar, trustee, Voice Consumer Care Council, was on the ground that the OMR had been declared a State Highway. The Tamil Nadu Highways Act did not have legislative provision to collect a fee as was available under sections 7 and 8 (A) of the National Highways Act, under which the Centre was authorised to levy toll by itself or under a BOT agreement.

K.M.Vijayan, senior advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted before a Bench, comprising Justices S.J.Mukhopadhaya and V.Dhanapalan, that a corresponding provision was absent in the State Highways Act. Hence there was no legislative sanction to collect toll on a road declared State Highway (SH).

However, tolls levied by the government under the Tolls Act enabled collection of toll by government or local body but not private persons under the BOT scheme. However, the Act would not apply to State Highway since it vested with the State Highway Authority. After the commencement of the State Highway, the power to levy fees under the Tolls Act was not available. Unless the government passed an amendment enabling the levy, collection of toll was illegal. No fee could be levied by an executive order. It could be a notification under a statute or a statute itself.

Further, whatever amount collected by way of revenue should go to the Consolidated Fund under Art.266 of the Constitution and appropriation of the same could be done only by the Appropriation Bill passed by the legislature. The petitioner prayed the court to declare the G.O. enabling the levy by the private body illegal and unconstitutional.