SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(SC) 1236

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Federation of NOIDA Residents Welfare Association and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14826 of 2024 [Arising Out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 33403 of 2016]
Decided On : 20-12-2024

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Adv. Ms. Madhavi Khanna, Adv. Mr. Nihaad Dewan, Adv. Mr. Jeezan Pakhliwal, Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv. For M/S. Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas, AOR
For the Respondent(s):Mr. Parthiv K. Goswami, Sr. Adv. Ms. Diksha Rai, AOR Ms. Atiga Singh, Adv. Ms. Apurva Sachdev, Adv. Mr. Piyush Vyas, Adv. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Binay Kumar Das, AOR Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Ms. Neha Das, Adv. Mr. Shivam Saxena, Adv. For M/S. Ap & J Chambers, AOR Mr. V.K. Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Amit Kumar Chawla, Adv. Mr. Akhileshwar Jha, Adv. Mr. Mahi Pal Singh, Adv. Ms. Manisha Chawla, Adv. Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR Mr. Merusagar Samantrey, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mrs. Shradha Deshmukh, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Upadhyay, AOR Mr. Amit Singh, Adv. Mr. Aman Pathak, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Kumari, Adv. Mr. Shashank Pachauri, Adv. Mr. Pradeep Misra, AOR Mr. Raunak Dhillon, AOR Mr. Raunak Dhillon, Adv. Mr. Rakesh Chatterjee, Adv. Respondent-in-person

The court ruled that the Concession Agreement's provisions for toll collection were invalid as NTBCL had recovered its project costs and profits, violating public policy and constitutional norms.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 13 and 14 - Public Interest Litigation - Challenge to the validity of the Concession Agreement for the DND Flyway toll collection - High Court held Articles 13 and 14 of the Agreement invalid, directing cessation of toll collection - The court found that NTBCL had recovered project costs and profits, rendering toll collection unjustified. (Paras 9, 91)

(B) Judicial Review - The court emphasized that contracts involving public authorities are subject to judicial scrutiny to ensure fairness and non-arbitrariness, especially when public interest is at stake. (Paras 26, 28)

(C) Delegation of Power - NOIDA exceeded its authority by delegating the power to levy fees to NTBCL, which was deemed unlawful. (Paras 47, 50)

(D) Public Policy - The formula for calculating the Total Project Cost was found to be unreasonable and contrary to public policy, leading to indefinite toll collection. (Paras 56, 64) (E) Findings of Court - The court upheld the High Court's judgment, dismissing the appeal and confirming the cessation of toll collection. (Paras 91, 92)

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - (!) High Court held Article 13 invalid and Article 14 severable; toll collection halted. - (!) - (!) Appellant NTBCL seeks reversal; CAG verification ordered; interim relief denied. - (!) - (!) Appellants argue maintainability, delegation, and policy compliance; High Court rejected these. - (!) - (!) No tender/public bidding not mandatory where public interest and feasibility considered; Article 14 deemed to conflict with public policy. - (!) - (!) Delegation of levy/collection power to NTBCL found unlawful; NOIDA lacked authority for sub-delegation under 1976 UP Industrial Area Development Act. - (!) - (!) Annexure F formula and perpetuity issues: formula deemed unreasonable; returns inflated; perpetual possibility rejected. - (!) - (!) Perpetuity and extension issues: automatic extension disputed; NOIDA consent required; concession not perpetual. - (!) - (!) CAG findings support decision that NTBCL recovered costs and profits; tolls unjustified to continue. - (!) - (!) Supreme Court dismisses SLP; confirms High Court conclusions; outdoor-ad licensing issues reserved.

What is the validity of the Concession Agreement provisions for toll collection in light of Article 13 and Article 14 of the Contract and public policy?

What are the issues surrounding maintainability, including locus standi, delay/laches, and scope of judicial review in a contract involving a State instrumentality?

How to determine whether NOIDA’s delegation of levy/collection of fees to NTBCL and the formula in Annexure F contravene Article 14 and public policy, and whether they can be severed?


JUDGMENT :

SURYA KANT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The NOIDA Toll Bridge Company Limited (NTBCL), has preferred the instant appeal questioning the judgement dated 26.10.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (High Court). The issue before the High Court concerned a challenge to the collection and levying of toll, as legitimised by the provisions enumerated in the Agreement dated 12.11.1997 (Concession Agreement), executed between NTBCL, the New Okhla Industrial Development Authority (NOIDA) and the Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services Limited (IL&FS). The Concession Agreement conferred upon NTBCL the rights necessary for the implementation of the Delhi NOIDA Bridge Project or the Delhi-NOIDA Direct Flyway (DND Flyway/Project) and, in connection thereto, the collection and levying of toll.

3. The High Court has vide the impugned judgement held Articles 13 and 14 of the Concession Agreement to be bad in law and directed NTBCL to cease the imposition of user fees or toll upon commuters using the DND Flyway.

(A) FACTS

4. Having laid out the observations of the High Court in brevi, it is essential at this juncture to delve into the facts of the instant case:

    4.1. The controversy at hand concerns the toll levied on the users of the DND Flyway. The inception of this dispute can be traced to the 1980s when the State of Uttar Pradesh (State of UP) sought to construct a bridge connecting South Delhi and NOIDA, to improve connectivity between the two regions. However, the State of UP recognised that significant financial expenditure would be involved in this ambitious endeavour, which it could not undertake independently.

    4.2. NOIDA and the Delhi Administration entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with IL&FS on 07.04.1992, intending to construct the DND Flyway. IL&FS at that point in time, was a Company promoted by Public Financial Institutions to enable non-governmental investment in infrastructure development. In pursuance of the MoU, a Committee comprising representatives of the Government of India, the Government of NCT of Delhi, the State of UP and IL&FS was constituted on 08.06.1993 to take important decisions relating to the Project and its implementation (Steering Committee).

    4.3. Thereafter, the Steering Committee on 08.04.1996 approved the incorporation of NTBCL by IL&FS in accordance with the Companies Act, 1956, which was contemplated to operate as a Special Purpose Vehicle for developing the DND Flyway on a Build, Operate, Own and Transfer (BOOT) basis. It was thereby intended that NTBCL would recover its investment in developing the DND Flyway infrastructural facility by imposing user fees on the commuters availing such services.

    4.4. In pursuance thereto, the State of UP accorded approval for the implementation of the DND Flyway and constituted an Empowered Committee, tasked with negotiating the Concession Agreement with IL&FS. The draft Concession Agreement was approved by the State Cabinet and reviewed by multilateral agencies financing the project, including the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. This initiative was recognised as one of the pioneering projects in India developed under the Public Private Partnership model (PPP).

    4.5. The Concession Agreement was executed on 12.11.1997, designating NOIDA and IL&FS as the ‘Sponsors’ and NTBCL as the ‘Concessionaire’. The aforesaid Concession Agreement expressly provided for the construction of the DND Flyway, from the Okhla Barrage in NOIDA to a location close to Maharani Bagh in Delhi. The project encompassed the development, establishment, financing, design, construction operation and maintenance of the DND Flyway, including the development, financing, design and construction of a flyover at Ashram Chowk.

    4.6. In terms of Section 2.7 of the Concession Agreement, the State and the Government of NCT of Delhi entered into a State Support Agreement on 14.01.1998, which facilitated: (i) the execution of the Delhi Lands Lease Deed on 23.10.1998

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    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

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top