The court determined that irregular actions can be ratified, validating past toll fee collections, but declared the government’s excess utilization of funds for projects not directly related to maintenance illegal.

JUDGMENT :

P.VELMURUGAN, J.

Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011 and Madurai District Bus Association filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6217 of 2011. Since both the writ petitions are arising out of the same cause of action, both the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. Writ petitions were filed challenging the ratification issued by the first respondent and both the writ petitions were partly allowed by the writ Court on 03.10.2014 holding that the ratification is illegal and quashed the said ratification, however denied the refund.

2. Challenging the quashing of the ratification order, the second respondent therein Madurai Corporation filed the writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2015 and challenging the denial of refund, the writ petitioners have filed the writ appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.1501 and 1502 of 2014 on the file of this Court.

3. Since all the appeals are arising out of the common judgment dated 03.10.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in the above said writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.6216 & 6217 of 2011, all the appeals have been taken up together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.

4. In the meanwhile, pending writ appeals, the Government passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.02.2016 to transfer the surplus amount of Rs.36 Crores available in ESCROW Account of inner Ring Road toll Collection into the Corporation Revenue Account by giving one time relaxation of the betterment of basic amenities to the added areas and completion of remaining 20% under Ground Drainage Works. Challenging the same, appellant in W.A(MD)No.1501 of 2014 has filed the present writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2021 to quash the G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.02.2016. The same is also the subject matter of the inner ring road. Therefore, the writ petition is also tagged along with these writ appeals and heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the earlier writ petitions.

6. The brief facts of case:

The second respondent decided to have an integrated bus stand and consequently, a new bus stand was established in the place of Mattuthavani. It is situated 10 km from the Central Bus stand. If one goes through the interior part of the City and further to ease the traffic congestion, the inner ring road had been formed on the northern side of Madurai and that ring road connects Kanniyakumari National Highway ie., NH 47 at a place called Kappalurpirivu. As far as the Aruppukkottai sector is concerned, the same is connected at a place called Mandela Nagar Pirivu NH 45B. Therefore, the buses which are coming from Aruppukkottai sector and Thirumangalam Sector instead of going inside the City to reach Mattuthavani Bus stand, are directed to via ring road. In case of buses plying on Thirumangalam sector, they have to take diversion from Kappalurpirivu which is near Thirumangalam and in case of Aruppukkottai sector, they have to take diversion from Mandela Nagar Pirivu to reach Mattuthavani sector. This ring road was opened for public and vehicular operation from 01.11.2000 in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 23.10.2000. For using the ring road a toll fee is also fixed thereunder.

7. In terms of the said notification, in respect of the stage carriages that are plying in between the Madurai and Aruppukkottai sector, the fee was initially fixed at the rate of 40 per single operation and in case where an operator operates 3 or more singles per day, it was fixed at the rate of Rs120/- per day which i