Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2021 (9) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (9) TMI 1503 - SC - Indian LawsSeeking restraint on construction of a toll plaza at 194 km of NH30 in the four-laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section of NH30, in violation of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 - principal bone of contention was the transgression of Rule 8 of the Rules - HELD THAT:- In MAHARASHTRA STATE BOARD OF SECONDARY ANDHIGHER SECONDARY EDU VERSUS. K.S. GANDHI AND ORS. [1991 (3) TMI 387 - SUPREME COURT], the question arose about the duty to give reasons in the following factual matrix. The Appellant, in the said case, conducted examinations. It was found that the moderators marksheets, relating to certain examinees, were tampered with. The results were withheld. An inquiry was conducted through seven Inquiry Officers, who proceeded to conduct an inquiry. The inquiry itself involved issuing notices to the students, inter alia. The Inquiry Officer submitted reports finding that the moderators marksheets had been fabricated. The students challenged the action of the Authority to withhold the results, as a measure ofpunishment, accepting the Inquiry Report. Dealing with the argument that no reasons were recorded by the Inquiry Officers, this Court held The omission to record reasons in the present case is neither illegal, nor is violative of the principles of natural justice. Whether the conclusions are proved or not is yet another question and would need detailed consideration - It will, at once, be noted that, the facts in the said case, were not disputed, and therefore, the omission to record reasons, was found neither illegal nor violative of principles of natural justice. In KRANTI ASSOCIATES PVT. LTD. VERSUS MASOOD AHMED KHAN [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT], the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), dismissed Revision Petition, only taking note of the fact that there were concurrent findings. This Court went on to find that the Order was vitiated but it is obvious that the Order of the Commission cannot be described as an administration decision. Persons, who may have a right or an interest, would know, what are the reasons which impelled the Administrator to take a particular decision. Judicial review, in India, which encompasses the wide contours of public interest litigation as well, would receive immeasurable assistance, if the reasons for particular decisions, are articulated to the extent possible. The giving of reasons also has a disciplining effect on the Administrator. This is for the reason that the reasons would capture the thought process, which culminated in the decision and it would help the Administrator steer clear of the vices of illegality, irrationality and also disproportionality. Reasons could help establish application of mind. Conversely, the absence of reasons may unerringly point to non-application of mind - It is a matter of discretion to be exercised, no doubt, taking into consideration the maximization of toll collection also and avoiding of leakage of toll, bearing in mind the fact that the Concessionaire is permitted to collect the toll only for the period of the Concessionaire Agreement Under Rule 16. To show application of mind, there must be material. Even in the absence of reasons, recorded as such, there must be proper pleadings with materials, unless facts are not in dispute. Whether invocation of the second proviso to Rule 8 in the facts illegal? - HELD THAT:- By Notification dated 07.05.2010, in exercise of power Under Section 11 of the National Highway Authority of India Act, 1988, the Central Government entrusted the project, which consisted of the stretch from 181.300 km to 231.950 km. of the NH 30, in the State of Bihar, to NHAI. On 12.02.2011, NHAI made a general Notification inviting objections from the general public towards the proposed construction to the toll plaza at 194 km. This is on the basis of the DPR, which, after detailed study, recommended the construction of the toll plaza at 194 km - the only requirement to locate the toll plaza within the municipal limits, is that a Section of the national highway, inter alia, is constructed within the municipal limits and the construction must be primarily for the residents living in the said municipal limits. There is hardly any dispute that the national highway, which means the project road, commences from 181.300 kms from the Patna side and it goes to the east and till 196 kms, it is located within the municipal limits. After 196 kms, it branches of towards the south, which is the new bypass consisting of nearly 36 kms. The total stretch consists of a little over 50 kms. For nearly 14 kms, the road project road passes through the municipal limits. In the Rules of 2008, Rule 2c defines a bypass as a Section of the national highway bypassing a town or a city. Therefore, the question may arise, whether, when Rule 8 speaks of construction of a Section of the national highway, which is within a municipal or town area limits, it will include a bypass, in view of the new definition. There is indication in the case that from 178 km, there was an existing bypass. The new construction was over the existing bypass. However, we do not explore this matter further as none of the parties addressed us on this and we proceed on the basis that there was construction of a National Highway partly within the municipal limits. It is thus concluded as follows: (1) The construction of the toll plaza at 194 kilometre was not illegal or arbitrary; (2) The direction by the High Court, to shift toll plaza, cannot be upheld and it is liable to be set aside; (3) The Appellants will look at the barricades (closing of service roads) in regard to the toll plaza and permit such barricades only as are permitted in Rule 17 of the Rules. Any unauthorised barricades will be removed without any delay and at any rate within 2 weeks from today. (4) The First Appellant will issue suitable directions to all Executive Authorities to maintain distinct records containing the decision, invoking the second proviso to Rule 8 of the Rules. Such direction shall be issued within 3 weeks from today. (5) The Appellants as also the Concessionaire are directed to extend the fullest benefits of the concessions Under Rule 9 of the Rules. Appeal allowed.
|