The court affirmed the Union's authority to collect fees for National Highways under the National Highways Act, ruling that state powers do not impede this legislative competence.

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.)

This writ of declaration has been instituted to declare Rule 8 of the National Highway Fee (Determination of Rate and Collection) Rules, 2008 as ultra virus to the Constitution of India and null and void.

2. The petitioner is an Ex-MLA and a practising Lawyer instituted the writ petition for declaration as stated above. The petitioner-in-person articulated his case mainly on the premise that collection of Toll through Toll Plaza is the exclusive power vest with the "State". Therefore, the present set of collection of fee through Toll Plaza by the National Highways Authority of India or through its agency is ultra virus to the Constitution of India .

3. To substantiate the arguments, the petitioner-in-person reminded the history regarding the development and collection of 'Toll' from pre-independence and post-independence era and certain enactments repealed were relied on by the petitioner for example, Indian Tolls Act 1851, the second Indian Tolls Act,1864 and the third Indian Toll Act 1888. The petitioner would contend that when the history reveals collection of Toll vest with the State, Municipalities and Panchayats, the present system of collection of fee by the National Highways Authority is unknown and therefore, the impugned rule made in exercise of the powers conferred under the National Highways Act is to be declared as unconstitutional. It is contended that collection of fee in Toll Plaza are exorbitant. The distance criteria are not strictly followed. The agents, concessionaire are exceeding the terms and conditions of their agreement and for all these reasons, the power to collect fee by the National Highway Authorities under the impugned Rule 8 is to be struck down.

4. In support of the contentions, the petitioner-in-person relied on the following judgments:

(i) Union of India v. Rajendra N.Shah and another reported in AIR Online 2021 SC 362 "

(ii) Special Reference No.1 of 2001 reported in (2004) 3 S.C.R

(iii) Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd., etc., v. State of U.P. and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 1927

(iv) Hansraj and Sons vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2692

(v) State of U.P., vs. Devi Dayal Singh reported in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 5

(vi) Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority vs. Sharad Kumar Jayantikumar Pasawalla and ors reported in AIR 1962 SC 1044

(vii) Government of NCT of Delhi v. Union of India reported in AIR Online 2023 SC 449;"

5. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India Mr.AR.L.Sundaresan would oppose by stating that the issues raised by the petitioner is no more res integra. The Constitutional validity of the provisions of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder were tested before the Courts and the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of G.Jeyakumar vs. Citizens Voice Club in W.P.Nos.20332 of 1998 etc., batch, validated Rule 8(A) of the National Highways Act vide judgment dated 09.01.2008. Further, Rule 8 was tested by the Apex Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India and others vs. Madhukar Kumar and others reported in(2022) 14 SCC 661. In view of the above judgments, the writ petition is to be rejected.

6. It is necessary to consider the provisions of the National Highways Act and the powers of the Central Government to collect fee in respect of National Highways declared under enactments. It is a settled position of law that both the Union list and the State list operate independently. Thus, the powers of the Union whether traceable under the Union list is the point to be considered. Schedule 7 L