ORDER :

(Prayer in W.P.(MD).No.15449 of 2020 : Writ petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the first respondent made in Notification bearing S.O.No.2382(E), published in the Government of India Gazette, dated 05.07.2019 by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, for collection of the user fee in respect of section Trichy – Thuvarankurichi – Melur – Madurai, which forms part of NH45B and quash the same and direct the 1st and 2nd respondents to collect the user fee, as prescribed in the notifications in respect of similar 4 way lanes Chengalpet – Tindivanam, dated 26.03.2009, Ulundurpet – Padalur, dated 24.07.2009, Padalur to Trichy, dated 26. 10.2009, which forms part of NH45 and Madurai – Aruppukottai, dated 16.06.2011 and Salem – Ulundurpet, dated 13.01.2012 on NH45B.)

In this batch of writ petitions, various notifications issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways at various point of time are under challenge, except in W.P.(MD).No.8646 of 2010, where rule 9(2) of National Highways Fee (Determination of rates and collection) Fees Rules 2008 was sought to be declared as ultra vires and unconstitutional.

2. Though number of such notifications as stated supra have been under challenge in this batch of cases, some of the notifications which were issued by the Central Government earlier, i.e., in the year 2010, 2012 and 2013 since have been superseded by subsequent notifications which are also under challenge in this batch of cases, it was brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India that, 11 writ petitions, i.e., five of the year 2010 and six of the year 2013 in this batch of cases have become infructuous.

3. In order to delve into the said plea raised by the respondents, as to the issue with regard to the infructuous nature of the prayer sought for in those writ petitions, the said writ petitions with their respective prayers were verified, accordingly, the following were found out.

4. In W.P.(MD).Nos.8644 and 8645 of 2010, the notification bearing S.O.No.12(E), dated 05.01.2010 was under challenge. However, the said notification, dated 05.01.2010 was subsequently, superseded by notification bearing S.O.No.409(E), dated 13.03.2012, which reads that, this is in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, S.O.No.12(E), dated 5th January 2010, except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession.

5. In view of this notification, dated 13.03.2012 in notification bearing S.O.No.409(E), the challenge made against notification bearing S.O.No.12(E), dated 05.01.2010 has become infructuous, accordingly, these writ petitions can be treated as infructuous.

6. Like that, in W.P.(MD).Nos.4252, 4253 and 4254 of 2010 are concerned, they challenge the notification bearing S.O.No.3040(E), dated 27.11.2009. However this notification also was superseded by the subsequent notification bearing S.O.No.455(E), dated 16.03.2012 which states that, this is in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways in S.O.No.3040 (E), dated 27.11.2009 as respects things done or omitted to be done befo