Back
Refuses to Answer Referred Two Decades Ago in Toll Dispute
Jodhpur, – A larger bench of the has declined to answer a referred to it over two decades ago, holding that the underlying concerning toll collection on a state road project had become purely academic after the project’s concession period ended in 2011.
The bench, comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sameer Jain, disposed of the writ petition while leaving the legal question open for determination in an appropriate case where a live controversy exists.
Background: A PIL That Outlived Its Project
The case originated from a PIL filed in by two practising advocates, and , challenging the development of the Manglana–Makrana–Borawar–Bidiyad Road on a basis. The had issued a notice inviting tenders in , and the successful bidder, , was permitted to recover its investment through toll collection over a concession period of 125 months, which ended on .
The petitioners argued that the delegation of the right to collect toll tax was illegal and amounted to an . They sought a declaration that the entire project was void or, in the alternative, sought various modifications to the toll collection mechanism.
A division bench, in , considered the matter to involve a vital question of interpretation of , and referred it to a larger bench.
Arguments: Respondents Urge Dismissal as
When the larger bench finally took up the reference, none of the petitioners appeared to press their contentions. The respondents, represented by the State and the construction companies, argued that the controversy had become by . They submitted that the construction was completed in and the concession period ended in 2011, leaving no live issue for adjudication.
Citing precedents, including , , and , the respondents contended that a constitutional court should not decide academic or hypothetical questions.
Court’s Analysis: No , No Decision
The bench examined whether any effective relief could still be granted. It noted that the contractual arrangement forming the foundation of the challenge had ceased to operate years ago. “The very contractual arrangement which forms the foundation of the petitioners' challenge has, therefore, ceased to operate,” the court observed.
The court emphasized that the judicial function is to adjudicate live disputes, not to render . “The Court is concerned with adjudicating the dispute actually brought before it and not with answering questions merely because they may have assumed legal significance in the past,” it stated.
It further held that the mere formulation or reference of a does not compel the court to pronounce upon it if subsequent events have rendered the controversy academic.
Key Observations
The court made several notable observations:
“The mere pendency of a reference for a long period cannot by itself justify adjudication of an otherwise . The Court must first ascertain whether a survives and whether determination of the referred question would have any operative consequence in the present proceedings.”
It also quoted the maxim – where there is a right, there is a remedy – to underscore that a is a prerequisite for judicial intervention.
Decision: Petition Disposed, Question Left Open
Concluding that “much water has flown under the bridge,” the larger bench held that no useful purpose would be served by undertaking an adjudication upon the substantial questions of law in the absence of a subsisting controversy. The writ petition was disposed of as , and the referred question was left open for consideration in an appropriate case where it arises for effective adjudication.
The court clarified that leaving the question open should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits.
Implications
The judgment reinforces the principle that courts should not decide questions that have become academic, even if they were formally referred by a coordinate bench. It serves as a reminder that the passage of time and can extinguish a controversy, and that requires courts to refrain from issuing disembodied pronouncements on abstract legal issues.
The interpretive question on Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act remains unanswered, awaiting a live dispute that genuinely requires its resolution.
