1. Levy of toll under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 — Nature of toll as compensatory tax — Recovery of construction costs. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1998 Supreme(SC) 1070
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.B.Pattanaik : Sujata V.Manohar
Mandsaur Transport Association
Versus
State Of M.P.
Case No. : 1188 of 1988
Date of Decision : 10/15/98
Toll is a compensatory tax limited to recovering construction and maintenance costs. It cannot be used for general welfare or continued perpetually once costs are recovered, and contractual agreements with contractors cannot justify continued collection from the public.
Headnote:(A) Indian Tolls Act, 1851 - Section 4 - Nature of toll levy - Compensatory tax - Toll cannot be continued perpetually like a general tax once construction costs are recovered - May be levied for repair and necessary upkeep - State cannot recover toll in excess of cost of construction with interest and maintenance - Toll cannot be utilized for general welfare activities of the State. (Para 1)
(B) Notification - Exemption of toll collection - Where cost of construction has been realized, toll should not continue merely to satisfy the term of a contract with a third-party contractor if costs and maintenance have already been recovered several times over. (Para 4)
Facts of the case:
Appeals were filed regarding the nature of toll levies. A Full Bench of the High Court held that tolls are compensatory and cannot be used for general welfare or continued indefinitely after cost recovery. The State subsequently issued a notification exempting tolls on bridges where construction costs were recovered, but provided that collection would only suspend after the expiry of contracts with toll contractors. In one specific instance, the cost of construction and maintenance had been recovered multiple times, yet the toll continued due to the contractor's agreement.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the principle that toll is a compensatory tax and cannot be used for general welfare. It found no justification for continuing toll collection on a bridge where costs had been recovered several times over, regardless of the remaining period of a contractor's agreement.
Issues: Whether the levy of toll is a compensatory tax or a general tax, and whether such toll can be continued until the expiry of a contractor's term after construction costs have been fully recovered.
Ratio Decidendi: Toll is compensatory in nature and is limited to the recovery of construction and maintenance costs; once these are recovered, the levy cannot continue perpetually or be diverted to general welfare, and contractual obligations to a contractor cannot justify the continued levy of toll from the public.
Result: Appeals from the judgment of the Full Bench dismissed; appeal by the association allowed; direction issued to stop toll collection on the bridge.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether toll can be used for general welfare — Whether toll collection can continue until a contractor's contract expires after construction costs are recovered. (Para 1 , 4 )
3. Toll is a compensatory tax and cannot be continued perpetually like a general tax once construction costs are recovered, except for necessary upkeep. (Para 1 , 4 )
4. Toll under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 is a compensatory tax and cannot be recovered in excess of construction costs, interest, and maintenance. (Para 1 )
5. Appeals from the Full Bench dismissed — Appeal by transport association allowed — Direction to cease toll collection on the bridge. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
6. What is the legal nature of a toll levied under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851?
Toll is in the nature of a compensatory tax. Unlike a general tax, it cannot be continued perpetually and must be limited to the recovery of construction costs, interest, and necessary upkeep of the road or bridge. (Para 1 )
7. Can toll collections be utilized for the general welfare activities of the State?
No, toll collections cannot be utilized for the general welfare activities of the State. (Para 1 , 3 )
8. Can toll collection continue until the expiry of a contractor's contract if construction costs are already recovered?
No, there is no justification for continuing toll collection solely until a contractor's contract period expires if the cost of construction and maintenance have already been recovered by the State Government. (Para 4 )
(1) THESE two appeals are from the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 5-2-1996 under which the High Court has held that the levy of toll under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 is in the nature of a compensatory tax. From its very nature, once the amounts which have been spent for the construction of a road and/or a bridge is recovered, toll cannot be continued perpetually like a general tax. It may, however, be levied for the repair of the road and/or the bridge concerned or its necessary upkeep. The High Court has, therefore, held that the State cannot recover toll in excess of the cost of construction with interest and maintenance of roads and bridges. The Full Bench, inter alia, set aside the finding given by an earlier Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Mandsaur Transport Assn. v. State of M.P. to the effect that toll can be utilised for general welfare activity of the State.
(2) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant State of Madhya Pradesh has very fairly drawn our attention to a notification dated 29-6-1998 issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred by Section 4 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 under which the State Government has exempted collection of tolls on such bridges on which the entire cost of construction has been realised by way of tolls. In view of the provisions of that notification, he very fairly states that the State Government has accepted the principles laid down by the Full Bench decision of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh impugned herein and hence no useful purpose would now be served by pursuing these appeals. These two appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
(3) THIS appeal is filed by Mandsaur Transport Association challenging the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in Mandsaur Transport Assn. v. State of M.P. under which the Division Bench had held that the toll could be for the purpose of meeting the general welfare activities of the State. The impugned judgment in this appeal has been set aside by the Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court. The appeals from the judgment of the Full Bench have not been pressed before us as already stated. Hence, Civil Appeal No. 1188 of 1988 has to be allowed.
(4) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant, however, points out that under the notification of 29-6-1998, although the State Government has exempted the collection of tolls on such bridges in respect of which the entire cost of construction has been realised by way of tolls, the State Government has also provided that where the collection of tolls has been given to a contractor by public auction, the collection of toll shall be suspended only after the expiry of the period of contract executed with the contractor. He submits that in the present case which deals with a toll imposed on the bridge at Shivna, admittedly, the cost of construction has been realised by way of toll several times over. He submits that toll should not be continued on that bridge henceforth. There would be no justification for continuing the toll till the contract period with the contractor is over in respect of that bridge. Looking to the facts and circumstances relating to the said bridge we find much force in this submission. There is no reason at all why collection of toll should continue henceforth where the cost of construction and even cost of maintenance have already been recovered by the State Government several times over by way of toll on that bridge. We, therefore, direct that no toll shall be collected on the bridge at Shivna henceforth. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
