JUDGMENT - THAKKER C.K., C.J.:—By invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India in Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the petitioner has prayed this Court to issue an appropriate writ, direction or order quashing and setting aside notification dated 28th February, 2003 and directing M/s. Ashok Infra, respondent No. 5 herein, to refund the entire amount collected by it towards collection of toll after it had received the amount to which it was otherwise entitled An alternative prayer is made to carry out survey of vehicles "in presence of the representative of the petitioner" and fix the rate of toll, term to recover the same and to direct respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to collect toll as per the report of the Expert Committee. A direction is also sought to investigate the transaction entered into by the State authorities with respondent No. 5 allowing it to collect toll by appropriate agency like Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.).

2. The case of the petitioner in the petition is that he is a citizen 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 constructed the old bridge informed the State Government that estimated life of the old bridge of hundred years had come to an end and the said company would not be responsible, if any eventuality would arise. After taking into consideration various aspects, the respondent State decided to construct a new bridge. A survey was carried out by the State Government and tenders were invited. The bid of respondent No. 5 was accepted, work order was issued and construction was completed by respondent No. 5. Since the bridge was constructed under BOT scheme, respondent No. 5 was allowed to collect toll on the said bridge. Respondent No. 5, for the purpose of collection of toll, appointed respondent No. 6 as its agent. The notification dated 28th February, 2000 permitted respondent No. 5 to collect toll as prescribed therein till December, 2005. Rates for various vehicles have been prescribed and exemption to certain vehicles have also been granted.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that with effect from 1st March, 2003, suddenly new charges were sought to be introduced and toll allowed to be collected on that basis. The said action is illegal, contrary to law and unlawful. It has been taken with consent of and in connivance with P.W.D. Officers. By the said action, respondent No. 5 has been granted undue and undeserving benefits. The notification dated 28th February, 2003, by which such permission was granted, is required to be declared arbitrary, unreasonable, and ultra vires Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

5. By the amendment, certain additional grounds have been taken by the petitioner. In paragraph 1-A, it was stated by the petitioner that he is the distributor of oil products and having his shop at Kolhapur. He is having a four wheeler vehicle and for busi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document