[Judgment of the Court was delivered BY A.ARUMUGHASWAMY, J]

1. These Writ Appeals are directed against the Common Order dated 03.02.2010 made in W.P. (MD).Nos.3161 and 3162 of 2010.

2. Thefacts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeals are as follows:-

(i). The members of the appellants association are stage carriage operators and they are operating small buses either within the District of Virudhunagar or on inter - District route in between Virudhunagar District and Madurai District. The Government had established a new Bus Stand at Mattuthavani, which is situated at a distance of ten Kilometers away from the Central Bus Stand. Thereafter, in order to ease the traffic congestion within the city, an inner ring road was formed on the northern side of National Highway.

(ii). In pursuance of the Government Order issued in G.O.Ms.No.149, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Mc.II) Department, dated 23.10.2000, the ring road was opened for public and vehicular operation from 01.11.2000 and toll fee was also fixed for using the ring road. The amount incurred for laying down and built up the ring road is stated to be Rs.47.35 crores. Therefore, in terms of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, the second respondent Corporation was permitted to collect the toll fee. The grievance of the appellants association is that no notification is issued by the first respondent authorizing the second respondent - Corporation to collect the toll fee on the expiry of five years period of notification.

(iii). Aggrieved over the same, the appellants association had filed W.P.(MD).No.3161 and 3162 of 2010 seeking for a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the second respondent Corporation from collecting or demanding the toll fee in terms of the notification, dated 23.10.2000 passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.149, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (Mc.II) Department, for the stage carriages of the members of the appellants association, who are using inner ring road in Madurai City while operating on their respective routes and further direct the second respondent Corporation to return the toll fee collected from the members of the appellants association from 01.11.2005 to till date with interest accrued thereon.

(iv). A learned Single Judge of this Court, by common order dated 03.12.2010, accepting the arguments advanced by the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation, had dismissed the said Writ Petitions on the ground of maintainability of Writ Petitions.

(v). Challenging the said Common Order dated 03.12.2010, the appellants association have come forward with the present Writ Appeals.

3. At the outset, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent Corporation has raised a preliminary objection regarding locus standi of the appellants association to file Writ Petitions and it is for the individual operators to challenge the notification, if so advised. In support of his contention, the learned Standing Counsel has relied on the Judgments of the Honble Supreme Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Mahinder Kumar Gupta and others vs. Union of India reported in 1995 (1) SCC 85.

4. The second contention of the learned Standing Counsel is that as per clause 10(a) of the Government Order dated 23.10.2000, the second respondent Corporation is entitled to collect toll fee and the collection of toll fee would be in force for 15 years with an annual rate of 8% for the first five years. Based on the above submissions, the learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent Corporation has prayed for dismissal of the Writ Appeals.

5. The vehement contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants association is that the second respondent Madurai Corporation is not entitled to collect toll fee charges, after the expiry of the period of notification, under which, it was conferred with the second respondent Madurai Corporation to collect toll fee. The second respon