( 1 ) THE present petition has been preferred for declaration that the provisions of the National Highways (Rate of fees) Rules, 1997 and the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways section and Permanent Bridge Public funded Project), Rules, 1997, are violative of and beyond the provisions of the National highways Act, 1956 and for further declaration that the levy of fees permanently made and sought to be made under the aforesaid rules for Sarkhej bridge constructed on sabarmati river at National Highway No. 8-A at K. M. 4/100 to 5/400 is bad in the eye of law and hence the respondents are not entitled to collect the same.

( 2 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the respondents are collecting the fees for the use of Sarkhej bridge constructed on Sabarmati river, near Vlshala hotel, Ahmedabad in violation of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 1956") and the Rules framed thereunder for collection of the fees, are dehors, the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that as per Section 7 of the Act, 1956, the Central Government may levy the fees at such rates which may be laid down by the Rules, for the services or benefits rendered in relation to the use of the permanent bridges. Sarkhej bridge in question is a permanent bridge, (within the meaning of rule 2 (j) of the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways Section and permanent Bridge Public Funded Project), rules 1997) having construction cost of more than 25 lacs and is open to the general traffic, on or after, first day of April 1976 and therefore the bridge in question is covered under Section 7 of the Act, 1956. It is also submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that what is permitted under section 7 of the Act, 1956 is to levy the fees, in commensurate with the services or benefits rendered. It is also submitted that rate of fee is fixed under Rule 3 of the National highways (Rate of Fee) Rules, 1997. Said rule 3 reads as under : "rule 3 - Rate - (1) The rate of fee for services or benefits rendered in relation to the use of ferries, permanent bridges, temporary bridges or tunnels or any section of national highway or bridges or both shall be as per Table given below :

( 3 ) THE impugned bridge, has incurred cost of construction less than 50 crores. Therefore, figures given in Rule 3 (1) against words "below 50" are to be seen for the purpose of the writ petition. In present case, levy of the fees is at an unreasonable, excessive and exorbitant rate. Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that levy of fees by the respondents for the use of the bridge in question is violative of Article 265 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that the respondents are appointing the contractors to levy the fees and such contracts are paying the fixed amounts to the respondents and substantial additional amounts go in private corpus. The amount of fees collected by the respondents is, in fact, highly disproportionate to the expenditure and there is no "fair correspondence" between the fees charged and the cost of services rendered. There is no "co-relationship" between the figures of expenditure and income. As per the affidavit dated 9-8-2004 filed by the respondents reveals that the costs incurred towards the constructions of the bridge in question is at Rs. 8. 42 crores and total cost of expenditure towards construction of the approaches of the bridge is rs. 68. 00 lacs (total expenditure of Rs. 9. 1 crores) and the total levy of the fees is at rs. 28. 14 crores. Thus, there is lot of difference between the expenditure and income. Collection of the fees is having neither "the broad co-relationship" nor the "fair correspondence" between the fees charged and cost of services rendered to the fees payers. The amount collected may not be mathematically commensurate with the expenses but the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document