Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by respondents 1 to 17 (writ petitioners) seeking to restrain the construction of a toll plaza at 194 km of NH30 in the four-laning of the Patna-Bakhtiyarpur section, alleging violation of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The writ petition was heard alongside another petition, and the learned Single Judge allowed them, directing the appellants (National Highways Authority of India and others) to shift the toll plaza to a location on the new alignment separating from the old NH30 to avoid Rule 8 violation and exempt persons not using the toll road from toll tax. The appellants filed a Letters Patent Appeal, which was dismissed by the Division Bench, confirming the Single Judge's judgment. The core legal issues involved whether the toll plaza construction violated Rule 8 and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226. The writ petitioners argued that the toll plaza within municipal limits caused difficulties for local residents and violated Rule 8, as the authority failed to assign written reasons and the new alignment was not primarily for local use. The appellants contended that the installation did not violate Rule 8, citing provisos allowing construction within municipal limits if primarily for residents' use, and emphasized project viability and agreement terms. The concessionaire supported the appellants, citing examples of other toll plazas within municipal limits and arguing compliance with Rule 8. The court analyzed Rule 8, noting the second proviso requires written reasons and conditions for construction within municipal limits. The learned Single Judge found the appellants failed to provide written reasons, did not establish the new alignment was primarily for local residents, and that the toll plaza restrained use of old NH30, forcing non-users to pay toll tax, thus violating Rule 8. The court rejected the argument that no fundamental rights were violated, holding that Rule 8 violation justified jurisdiction under Article 226. The Supreme Court's judgment upheld the High Court's decision, emphasizing the statutory breach and the need to protect residents from undue toll burdens.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - Article 226 Constitution of India - Jurisdiction - Writ petitioners sought restraint on toll plaza construction alleging violation of Rule 8 of National Highways Fee Rules, 2008 - High Court found violation of Rule 8 and exercised jurisdiction under Article 226 despite argument that no fundamental rights were violated - Held that violation of statutory rules justifies intervention under Article 226 (Paras 11-12). B) Infrastructure Law - Toll Plaza Construction - Rule 8 National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 - Conditions for Construction Within Municipal Limits - Dispute over toll plaza at 194 km of NH30 in Patna-Bakhtiyarpur section - High Court found appellants failed to assign written reasons as required under second proviso to Rule 8 and did not establish new alignment primarily for local residents' use - Directed shifting of toll plaza to avoid violation and exempt non-users from toll tax (Paras 1, 4-5, 11).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the construction of a toll plaza at 194 km of NH30 violates Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, and whether the High Court had jurisdiction under Article 226 to grant relief.
Final Decision
Supreme Court upheld High Court judgment, confirming violation of Rule 8 and jurisdiction under Article 226, directing shift of toll plaza to avoid violation and exempt non-users from toll tax.
Law Points
- Interpretation of Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules
- 2008
- Jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India
- Requirement of written reasons for toll plaza construction within municipal limits
- Conditions under second proviso to Rule 8
