Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, claiming to be public-spirited citizens, filed a writ petition in public interest challenging the decision of the State of Maharashtra (respondent no.1) to extend the concession period for collection of toll by respondent no.5, M/s. Vishwaraj Housing Company Pvt. Ltd., on the Kamptee-Kalamana road constructed on a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. The facts reveal that in September 1997, a tender notice was issued for construction of the road on BOT basis, and the bid of respondent no.5 for Rs.10.5 crores was accepted. On 12.6.1998, the State Government granted approval for accepting the tender. Subsequently, the concession period was extended, which the petitioners alleged was arbitrary and against public interest. The petitioners sought quashing of the extension and a direction to the respondents to act in accordance with law. The respondents, represented by the Assistant Government Pleader and counsel for respondent no.5, opposed the petition, contending that the extension was a contractual decision taken in accordance with the terms of the agreement and was not arbitrary. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the matter essentially pertained to a contractual arrangement between the State and the concessionaire. The court observed that in the absence of any demonstrable arbitrariness or violation of public interest, it would not interfere with the contractual decision under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petition was dismissed, and rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Public Interest Litigation - Build Operate Transfer (BOT) Contract - Toll Collection - Extension of Concession Period - Petitioners challenged extension of concession period for toll collection by respondent no.5 on BOT basis - Court held that the decision to extend concession period is a contractual matter between the State and the concessionaire, and in absence of any arbitrariness or violation of public interest, no interference under Article 226 is warranted - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the extension of the concession period for toll collection by the State Government in a BOT road project is arbitrary and violative of public interest, warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Public Interest Litigation
- Build Operate Transfer
- Toll Collection
- Concession Period
- Judicial Review
- Contractual Matters
- Article 226
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (10) 106
Writ Petition No.3658 of 2006
B.G. Kulkarni for petitioners, B.H. Dangre (AGP) for respondent nos.1-4, S.P. Dharmadhikari for respondent no.5
Anil s/o Shyamsundar Agre, Girdhari s/o Sohanlal Agrawal, Rajeev s/o Ramdayal Gupta, Smt. Sunita Anil Agre, Mahendra s/o Shyamsundar Agre
State of Maharashtra, The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, Nagpur Region, The Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Agricultural Department, Civil Lines, Nagpur, The Deputy Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Agricultural Construction Division, Civil Lines, Nagpur, M/s. Vishwaraj Housing Company Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public Interest Litigation challenging extension of concession period for toll collection in a BOT road project.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought quashing of the extension of concession period and direction to respondents to act in accordance with law.
Filing Reason
Petitioners alleged arbitrary action by State Government in extending concession period for toll collection by respondent no.5.
Issues
Whether the extension of concession period for toll collection is arbitrary and violative of public interest?
Whether the court should interfere under Article 226 with a contractual decision regarding BOT project?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that extension of concession period is arbitrary and against public interest.
Respondents contended that extension is a contractual decision taken in accordance with agreement terms and not arbitrary.
Ratio Decidendi
The decision to extend the concession period in a BOT contract is a contractual matter between the State and the concessionaire. In the absence of any arbitrariness or violation of public interest, the court will not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners are law abiding citizens. The petitioners have preferred the instant petition in the public interest challenging arbitrary action of the respondent no.1 in extending concession period for collection of toll by the respondent no.5.
Learned Counsel Shri Kulkarni contended that in September 1997, tender notice was published by respondent no.1 for construction of Kamptee-Kalamana road on build, operate and transfer basis (BOT). The bid of respondent no.5 (Rs.10.5 crores) was accepted. On 12.6.1998, State Government granted approval for accepting the tender of respondent no.5.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.3658 of 2006 before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, challenging the extension of concession period. The court heard the matter and dismissed the petition on 17 October 2006.
