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
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.
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:
4.2. 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
Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu
Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India
Balco Employees’ Union v. Union of India
Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra
Villianur Iyarkkai Padukappu Maiyam v. Union of India, (2009) 7 SCC 561 [Para 13
R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group
State of Madhya Pradesh and Another v. Bhailal Bhai and Others
Union of India and Another v. Tarsem Singh
Joshi Technologies International Inc. v. Union of India
Silippi Constructions Contractors v. Union of India
Kasturi Lal Lakshmi Reddy v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India
City Industrial Development Corporation v. Platinum Entertainment
Pathan Mohammed Suleman Rehmatkhan v. State of Gujarat
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
Meerut Development Authority v. Association of Management Studies
Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
Rattan Chand Hira Chand v. Askar Nawaz Jung
Beed District Central Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra
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.
A concession period extension under a contract requires compliance with specific procedural conditions, and is not automatic despite recommendations from an independent engineer.
it appropriate to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 in the aforesaid peculiar circumstances for the limited purpose of interim protection while relegating the parties to arbitration.
Point of Law : Commercial Vehicles - Toll plazas/posts/barriers - Collection of Toll Tax – Whether rights of petitioner is violated - Conduct of parties is governed by the Contract Agreement and the ....
Parties to a contract must adhere to its terms despite unforeseen circumstances like force majeure, and disputes arising from such a contract should be resolved through contractual mechanisms, not ju....
The interpretation of contractual obligations under the Concession Agreement indicates that the construction of additional toll lanes was excluded from maintenance obligations, contrary to the tribun....
The court upheld that materially adverse effects on toll collections justified the arbitral tribunal's conclusion of a material breach leading to terminal payments under the Concession Agreement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.