Back
Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA
Mistra Nand Kaushik - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 01/05/1967
TOLL TAX - LEVY AND CHARGE - INDIAN TOLLS ACT, 1851 (ACT VIII OF 1851) - SECTIONS 2, 8 - GENERAL CLAUSES ACT, 1897 (ACT X OF 1897) - SECTION 8 - NOTIFICATION DATED NOVEMBER 1, 1956 - NOTIFICATION DATED MARCH 22, 1963 - NOTIFICATION DATED JULY 19, 1960 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY - BRIDGE OVER RIVER HINDON - TOLL LEVY - VALIDITY - COURT'S DIRECTION TO NOT LEVY TOLL TAX.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a stage carriage operator, challenged the levy of toll tax on the bridge over river Hindon, constructed by the State Government. The petitioner contended that the toll tax was being levied at a higher rate than what was permissible under the relevant notifications and that the respondents were not entitled to levy toll for the return journey if it was completed by midnight of the following day. The petitioner also relied on a judgment of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which had held that the toll tax could be levied only at the rate of Rs. 3.75 and not at the rate of Rs. 5.62.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the notification dated March 22, 1963, which superseded the notification dated November 1, 1956, clearly expressed an intention that the bridges to which the terms and rates of this notification would apply would be those alone which are notified from time to time on or after March 22, 1963. Since the bridge at river Hindon had not been so notified, the respondents had no legal authority to levy or charge tolls from persons or vehicles using it.
Issues: 1. Whether the notification dated March 22, 1963, which superseded the notification dated November 1, 1956, applied to the bridge over river Hindon. 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to levy toll tax at the rate of Rs. 5.62 instead of Rs. 3.75.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notification dated March 22, 1963, clearly expressed an intention that the bridges to which the terms and rates of this notification would apply would be those alone which are notified from time to time on or after March 22, 1963. Since the bridge at river Hindon had not been so notified, the respondents had no legal authority to levy or charge tolls from persons or vehicles using it. 2. The Court did not decide the issue of whether the respondents were entitled to levy toll tax at the rate of Rs. 5.62 instead of Rs. 3.75, as it was not necessary to do so in light of the finding on the first issue.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed and the respondents were directed not to levy or charge toll in respect of the stage carriage plied by the petitioner on the bridge over the river Hindon.
2. The petitioner plies a stage carriage under a temporary stage carriage permit on Muzaffarnagar-Budhana-Kandla-Issopur Teel route. This route crosses river Hindon at Budhana. The State Government has constructed a bridge over river Hindon. This bridge was opened for traffic from 21st September, 1960 Persons using this bridge were subjected to the levy of toll tax from that date. Several stage carriage operators of this route challenged the law of the toll tax by writ petitions filed in this Court Mohammad Ibrahim v. State of U.P. Writ Petition No. 1809 of 1961 : (AIR 1967 All 24) writ petitions were heard and decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 21-9-1965. By his judgement the learned Single Judge repelled the various constitutional grounds urged to challenge the levy and held that under the notification dated 1-11-1956, the respondents were entitled to recover toll at the rate of Rs. 3.75 from the petitioners in respect of their stage carriage having a carrying capacity of more than 12 passengers, for using the Hindon bridge and that no toll was chargeable in respect of the return journey, if the return journey was completed by the midnight of the following day and the toll receipt for the outward journey was produced. The learned Judge also held that the notification dated 22-3-1963 on which reliance was placed on behalf of the respondents, did not alter the situation either with respect to the rates of toll or with respect to exemption from payment of toll on the return journey, if completed by the midnight of the following day, and if the original ticket was produced. He held that the action of the State Government in levying toll at the rate of Rs. 5.62P. per vehicle was not justified. He directed the State Government to realise toll only at the rate of Rs. 3.75 P. per vehicle for the outward journey.
The petitioner states that in spite of the said decision of this court, the respondents are continuing to levy toll at the rate of Rs. 5.62 P. Though the copy of the judgement of this Court was placed before the respondent, they demur from acting in accordance therewith on the plea that the benefit of the said judgement will be given only to the operators who were parties in the writ petitions which were disposed of by the said judgement. On that account the petitioner has come to this court at this stage.
3. It appears that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act VIII of 1851) the State Government issued a notification dated November 1, 1956 specifying the terms and conditions for the levy and charge of the toll, from persons using bridge which may be notified. The schedule of this notification provided the rates of the levy.
4. The U.P. Gazette dated 30th July, 1960 published a notification No. 2284-CW/ XXTII-P.W.A-58-C(W)-60-dated July 19, 1960. This notification stated that in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Act VIII of 1851) and in pursuance of the provision of paragraph 2 of the Government notification of No. 5495(3) C/XXVIII - PWA-217-C-58, dated November 1, 1956, the Government of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to notify the bridge over the Hindon River at Budhana on Muzaffarnagar-Budhana Road in Muzaffarnagar district as a bridge which shall be subject to the levy of tolls from the date it opens to traffic on the terms and condition laid down in the aforesaid notification as amended from time to time. By virtue of this notification the bridge at river Hindon became subject to the notification dated 1st November 1956, and tolls were levied on that bridge from the date it
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
