TMI Blog2004 (4) TMI 624X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itizen of India. According to him, State of Maharashtra had adopted a policy of developing infrastructure like construction of tunnels, roads, bridges, etc. through private sector participation. Since the State Government was in financial crisis, it had adopted a new concept known as Build, Operate and Transfer ( BOT for short). Under the said project, the Government hands over the work to a private sector/undertaking/entrepreneur which will construct tunnel, road or bridge, as the case may be, and collect toll in accordance with the policy of the Government. The State Government has undertaken various such projects throughout the State by inviting participation of private sector undertakings. 3. According to the petitioner, in Sangli District, near Ankali village, there was an old bridge on river Krishna. It was constructed during British regime in or about 1885. It was narrow and insufficient, Since more than hundred years were over, there was necessity either to repair it or to construct a new bridge. It was also necessary in view of increase in vehicular traffic. The Government considered the possibility of widening of existing old bridge but the British Company which had ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at in 1993, P.W.D. estimated the construction cost of the bridge at ₹ 2.16 crores. In 1996, the Pune Divisional Office estimated the cost to be ₹ 3.92 crores. In 1997, it was estimated at ₹ 5.25 crores. When tenders were invited from private contractors, the construction cost was estimated by the department at ₹ 5.25 crores. Since the construction was under BOT policy, terms and conditions were specified in the tender form itself. Respondent No. 5 submitted its offer at ₹ 25.10 crores as the total estimated cost of construction and concession period of six years and nine months. Concession period would mean total period including period of construction and toll collection till the project is finally transferred and handed over to the State Government. Though construction period was two years, construction was completed within a period of 11 months and 18 days. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, respondent No. 5 started collection of toll after completion of project i.e. after 11 months and 18 days. Substantial amount in excess to which respondent No. 5 was entitled has thus already been recovered by it. 7. It is also stated by the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ears. ), After three years i.e. on 28th February, 2003, therefore, toll was increased which cannot be said illegal or unlawful. In the draft notification dated 13th January, 2000, toll rates were to be shown separately. While issuing notification at the Government level, however, due to oversight, only one rate was mentioned in the entire concession period. Thus there was a mistake in issuing the first notification. In the accepted tender, it was mentioned that rate of toll shall be increased after every three years . But while issuing final notification, rate of toll remained same for the entire concession period i.e. up to December 3, 2005. The said mistake was subsequently rectified and revised notification was issued on 28th February, 2003 and increase in toll was permitted. Such action cannot be said illegal or objectionable. It also cannot be alleged that the record was tampered with to favour respondent No. 5. 10. It was stated by the deponent that Section 20(1-A) of the Act enacts that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), but subject to provisions of Subsections (1-B), (1-C) and (1-D), the State Government may levy and collect tolls on motor vehicles, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s published on 13th April, 1998 and lowest tender of respondent No. 5 was accepted which was for six years and nine months as concession period including two years' period of construction. The second lowest offer was given by M/s. Ameya Developers Pvt. Ltd., Pune with concession period of eight years and three months. The entrepreneur had quoted total project cost at ₹ 2510.88 lakhs. He was, therefore, entitled to recover a total project cost of ₹ 2510.88 lakhs quoted in its tender form which was legal and valid. Since concession period was accepted, respondent No. 5 is entitled to collect toll tax up to that period. Though construction period was given to entrepreneur for two years, as the respondent No. 5 completed the work within eleven months and eighteen days, by using modern machinery, advance technology and material with proper planning, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, it was allowed to collect toll tax from February, 2000 onwards. It, therefore, cannot be said that by allowing the entrepreneur either by permitting collection of toll before a period of two years or from collecting toll at enhanced rate with effect from 1st March, 2003, illeg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ovisions of the Act or the policy of the Government, in our opinion, the action cannot be said illegal, arbitrary, or otherwise unreasonable. It is no doubt true that undue or undeserving benefits cannot be permitted to be taken by private individuals/entrepreneurs/undertakings and if such action is challenged before a Court of law, in exercise of plenary jurisdiction, this Court can interfere with it by issuing appropriate directions. 16. In this connection, it may be necessary to consider the relevant provisions of the Act. The Act has been enacted to consolidate and amend the law relating to taxation of motor vehicles in the State of Bombay and to provide for certain other matters. Section 20 of the Act imposes a bar to levy tolls on motor vehicles except as provided therein. The said section has been amended and Sub-section (1-A) of Section 20 expressly provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), but subject to the provisions of Sub-sections (1-B), (1-C) and (1-D), the State Government could levy and collect tolls on motor vehicles and trailers drawn by such motor vehicles in cases covered by the said provision, Sub-section (1-A) which is material re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , reconstruction, improvement or repairs, as the case may be, is not less than ten lakhs of rupees; or (b) in respect of a bridge or tunnel including approach road thereto or section of road or by-pass which, in the opinion of the State Government, is of special service to the public. Explanation.-- For the purposes of this section, the expression Capital Outlay shall include the anticipated cost of certain essential on goings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and interest on such outlay at such rates as the State Government may fix until the full amount of such outlay is recovered. 17. It is thus clear that it is open to respondent No. 1-State to allow respondent No. 5 to collect tax in accordance with law. It is also clear that tenders were invited and the lowest bid of respondent No. 5 was accepted. An agreement was entered into between the parties, work order was issued and on the basis of terms and conditions of tender, respondent No. 5 was allowed to collect toll. It is also clear that under the agreement, respondent No. 5 can collect toll up to 3rd December, 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there is undue or undeserving benefit by respondent No. 5. 19. Normally, in such matters, this Court would not disbelieve what has been stated by a public authority and has been placed on record. In this connection, it may be profitable to refer to a decision of this Court in Vinayak V. More v. The Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd., 2000 Bom CR 437 : (AIR 2000 Bom 309), Considering the provisions of Section 20, as amended in 1987, this Court held that normally when the figures of costs and expenses are furnished by the Corporation before the Court, the Court would not proceed on the basis that they were incorrect and the collection was arbitrary. It was observed that ordinarily it is not for a High Court to go into such aspects, except, of course, in a case where it could be clearly shown that the fixation of the toll amount is wholly arbitrary. 20. In the instant case, one of the terms of the agreement expressly provided for keeping accounts by respondent No. 5 and submission of regular monthly figures to respondent No. 1. Such figures have been furnished by respondent No. 5. The said fact has been stated by respondent No. 5 in its affidavit and confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
