Unilateral changes in contract terms by authorities violate constitutional rights and contractual obligations; agents post-contract are liable only for actual collections minus operational expenses.

JUDGMENT :

DEEPAK ROSHAN, J.

1. Present writ application has been filed by petitioner praying therein for following reliefs:-

“(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction, for quashing/setting aside the Letter No.631 dated 07.06.2024 (Annexure-18) issued by Executive Engineer, Road Division, Chaibasa (Respondent No.4), wherein Petitioner has been directed to deposit the amount of Toll pertaining to Sangajata Toll Plaza (Chaibasa-Kandra Section) as per stipulated rate determined by the Respondent, as being wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India.

(ii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction, including Writ of Declaration declaring the action of Respondent-State of Jharkhand of unilateral enhancement of the amount of contract value being the total installment amount, as wholly illegal and arbitrary as said unilateral enhancement has been taken by Respondent-authorities completely contrary to the terms and conditions of the contract agreement vide Agreement No. 01/RFP/2018-19 (Annexure-2) pertaining to Sangajata Toll Plaza (Chaibasa-Kandra Section).

(iii) For issuance of further appropriate writ/order/direction including Writ of Declaration declaring that after expiry of period of contract pursuant to Agreement No. 01/RFP/2018-19 which finally expired on 21.06.2021 (at 8.00 Hrs.), the status of the petitioner qua the toll collection at Sangajata Toll Plaza (Chaibasa-Kandra Section) is that of an Agent of Respondent-State of Jharkhand for deploying specified category of personnel and supervise them for collection of USER Fee.

(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, or direction including the writ of Declaration, declaring that Respondent-State of Jharkhand, post expiry of the period of the contract entered by it with Petitioner vide Agreement No. 01/RFP/2018-19 i.e. 21^st June, 2021 (at 8.00 Hrs.) up to the date of relieving/taking-over of Toll Plaza from the Petitioner pertaining to Sangajata Toll Plaza (Chaibasa-Kandra Section), is only entitled to receive payment of actual collection of toll from the Petitioner less Toll Administrative & Operational Expenses + Supervision and Service Charges incurred by Petitioner for collection of toll, especially because Respondents, contrary to the terms of the Agreement, have unilaterally extended the period of the contract for toll collection despite protest being made by the Petitioner.

(v) For issuance of any other appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/ direction(s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

2. Short facts of the case are that Road Construction Department, being an executive authority under Rule 2(f) of Jharkhand Highways Fees (Determination of Rate and Collection), Rules, 2011 published a Notice Inviting Tender for appointment of User Fee Collection Agency for Sangajata Toll Plaza (Chaibasa-Kandra Section), situated at Chaibasa-Kandra Road, vide N.I.T. dated 10.07.2017.

3. Petitioner participated in aforesaid tender and, having been declared as Highest Bidder, was awarded the work of User Fee Collection and an agreement being Agreement No. 01/RFP/2018-19 dated December, 2018 was executed between petitioner and Executing Authority (Road Construction Department) which was valid for a period of two years from 21.12.2018 till20.12.2020.

4. Although contract period expired on 20^th December, 2020 and, as per agreement and RFP document, contract could have been extended for a further period of maximum six months with mutua