AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
WP(C)No.21684 of 2013 is filed by the Tamilnadu State Transport (TNSTC) contending that they are entitled to operate its vehicle through the State of Kerala without paying any toll, fee or other charges for the use of the roads and also for directing the 5th respondent not to collect any toll fee for the petitioner's vehicle for passing through the newly constructed bridge at Amaravila. The basis of the contention is that the stage carriages of the petitioner operated on the basis of a reciprocal agreement between the two States and therefore, the Government of Kerala should treat the petitioner's vehicle at par with the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation (KSRTC) and extend all the benefits enjoyed by the KSRTC to the petitioner's vehicles as well.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent stating that the Amaravila Toll Booth situated in NH 47 at Ch.588/000 before Amaravila Bridge near Neyyattinkara was opened for the public in 2003 and that for the year 2013-2014, the estimated amount of toll collection at Amaravila Bridge was Rs.49,56.260/- and after tender, the right for toll collection was awarded to the highest bidder one B.Anilkumar for Rs.67 lakh. The period of collection of contract for toll collection was from 6.5.2013 to 31.3.2014, and after execution of the required agreement, Anilkumar started toll collection from 6.5.2013 onwards. As per the agreement condition, an exemption was given to vehicles coming under various categories listed in item No.2 of Schedule B. In addition to that the vehicles of the KSRTC were entitled to exemption from toll as per item No.2, the special conditions in the agreement. The agreements were produced as Exts.R4(a) and R4(b). The buses of the Petitioner Corporation were never exempted. Even as per Toll Act amended in 1990 only those motor vehicles belonging to the Government of Kerala or the Government of India and any stage carriage operated by the KSRTC were exempted. It is clear from Ext.R4(a) list that the petitioner's vehicles are not exempted from paying the toll. Nothing produced by the petitioner enables them to get any exemption from payment of toll. In such circumstances, no relief can be granted in WP(C)No.21684 of 2013, and the same is hereby dismissed.
WP(C)No.15545 of 2014 is filed by B.Anilkumar, the contractor who was given the right to collect toll for one year from 6.5.2013 to 31.3.2014. He alleges that the TNSTC, the first respondent, is not paying toll which comes to around Rs.5000/- per day. Accordingly, he sought a direction against respondents 1, 2, and 4 to 6 to pay the toll fee at Amaravila point at NH 47. There is also a prayer to direct them to pay the arrears of toll fee from 1.4.2013 with interest at the rate of 12% in respect of the trips of their vehicles through Amaravila toll point at NH 47 at Thiruvananthapuram District. Learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C)No.15545 of 2013 also brings to my notice the judgment in RSA No. 600 of 2011 passed by a Bench of this Court on 22.9.2011, wherein the appeal preferred by the TNSTC against a similarly situated contractor against whom a decree was passed in a suit for money that claimed toll fee for the vehicles in TNSTC. The contention of the Corporation that there is a reciprocal arrangement and that the TNSTC is liable to pay the toll amount was found against him.
In view of the above and my findings in WP(C)No.21864 of 2013, wherein I have already held that the TNSTC is liable to pay toll fee, and it is declared that respondents 1, 2, and 4 to 6 are liable to pay the toll fee. However, as the quantum of the amount payable calls for a factual adjudication, the petitioner is directed to approach the civil court for the quantification of the amounts, respondents 1,2 and 4 to 6 are liable to pay. Granting such liberty, WP(C)No.15543 of 2013 is partly allowed. It is also made clear that the period spent by the writ petitioner in prosecuting this writ petition, namely, from 23.8.2013 onwards, will be excluded to compute the period of limitation.
WPC No.21684 of 2013 is dismissed. WPC No.15545 of 2013 is partly allowed.