##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:45058-DB]

Reportable HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1668/2002 CNR: RJHC010194892002 | URN: CW / 4892U / 2002

1. Mohd. Sharif, Advocate aged 35 years S/o Shri Abdul Karim Choudhary, R/o Jama Masjid Road, Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

2. Mustaq Ahmed S/o Shri Suleman Sisodya, aged 48 years, R/o Bari Idgah Road, Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan ----Petitioners Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary to the Government, Public Works Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2.1 Chief Engineer-cum-OSD, PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

2.2 Chief Engineer (Roads)/(NH), PWD, Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

3. M/s. Roop Rajat Construction, 8 Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Partnership firm formed on

13.09.2000)

4. M/s Roop Rajat Construction (P) Ltd., 8 Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur

5. M/s Roop Rajat Construction, 8 Krishna Nagar, Pali Road, Jodhpur, Rajasthan (Partnership firm formed on

11.10.2001)

6. M/s Jai Baba Construction Company, A-302, Maharaja Apartment, Bani Park, Devi Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : None present.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Chandak for Mr. B.L.

Bhati, AAG Mr. Aishwarya Anand, DGC Mr. Rakesh Sharma for Mr. Rajesh Panwar, Sr. Advocate-cum-AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY K. AGRAWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

J U D G M E N T

DATE : 16/09/2026 Sanjay K. Agrawal, CJ:

1. The Larger Bench so constituted is called upon to adjudicate and determine the substantial question of law which came to be formulated and referred for consideration pursuant to the order dated 05.11.2003. The said substantial question of law, as formulated in the aforesaid order, is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of ready reference:-

"The question involved in the instant case pertains to the interpretation of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The issue is of vital importance and has large-scale implications.

In the circumstances, we consider it appropriate to refer the matter to Larger bench of this Court. We order accordingly. Learned counsel for the parties shall be at liberty to raise all their pleas before Hon'ble the Larger bench of this Court."

2. None has marked presence qua the petitioners to put forth their contentions.

3. The undisputed facts, as emerging from the pleadings and the record of the present case, are that a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India came to be preferred by the petitioners, who are practicing advocates at Makrana. The subject matter of the litigation pertains to the improvement of the road namely, Manglana–Makrana–Borawar–Bidiyad Road (hereinafter referred to as “the project”).

4. The Government of Rajasthan, through its Public Works Department, issued a Notice Inviting Tender (hereinafter referred to as “NIT”) dated 31.08.2000, inviting bids for the development of the aforesaid project on Build- Operate-Transfer (hereinafter referred to as “BOT”) basis. The Government of Rajasthan, in furtherance of its policy, expressed its desire to entrust the construction of State roads to private entrepreneurs under the liberalized economic policy of the State as well as the Central Government, having regard to the limited availability of resources, both in terms of finances and infrastructural expertise.

5. Pursuant to the aforesaid NIT dated 31.08.2000, the entire finances required for execution of the project were to be arranged by the entrepreneur/successful bidder. The successful bidder was to be permitted to recover the investment so made through levy of toll tax upon the users of the facility, at such rate as may be fixed by the Government. The total period of concession was stipulated to commence from the date of handing over of the land for the project/site and was to continue until recovery of the entire amount spent on the project or till the expiry