IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 10421 of 2009 Between: Greater Hyderabad Federation for Struggle Against Toll Plaza, Patancheru, represented by its Chairman, K.V.B. Subba Rao S/o. K.V. Shankar Rao R/o. Adarsh Nagar, Sherilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its Secretary, Roads & Buildings (National Highways) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 The District Collector, Medak District at Sangareddy. 3 The Engineer-in-Chief, Roads & Buildings, Administration & National Highways, Erramanzil, Hyderabad. 4 M/s. Progressive Constructions Limited, Raghava N Block, 7th Floor, R.R. Towers, Cheerag-ali-lane, Hyderabad - 500 001. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the respondents 1 to 3 herein permitting the 4th respondent herein to collect the Toll Fee by erecting the Toll Plaza amidst of Patancheru Town within the territorial limits of Great Hyderabad Municipal Corporation and not considering the representations made by the petitioner and other associations as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India consequently direct the respondents to shift the Toll Plaza to outside the territorial limits of Patancheru village and Mandal, Medak District or in the alternative direct the 2nd respondent to extend the relaxations as ordered in Proceedings No.D2/101/2009 dated 22.1.2009 to the entrepreneurs having their industrial units in and around Patancheru limits including the transport vehicles supplying the raw-material as well the finished products. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.J.C.FRANCIS Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR ROADS & BUILDINGS The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Writ Petition No.10421 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition is without any legal profile whatsoever. The petitioner asserts to be a Federation for Struggle Against Toll Plaza, Patancheru. It seeks a declaration that respondents 1 to 3 ought not to have permitted the fourth respondent to collect toll fee by erecting a toll plaza in Patancheru Town within the jurisdiction of the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) and states that erection of this toll plaza and collection of toll fee is violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Sri J.C.Francis, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on one person only one tax could be levied. This contention has no basis in jurisprudence and is not supported by constitutional or legislative authority. There are specific legislative entries for exercise of the general legislative power as well as for exercising taxing power under Lists I and II, and for exercising legislative power under List III of Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of India. It is trite and the established constitutional principle as well, sanctified by Article 265 of the Constitution that tax could be levied if supported by legislative authority. The over broad contention that only one type of tax can be levied on a person would lead to incongruous results. To illustrate, a person paying property tax to a local body for instance, would be immune to income tax or sales tax. This would lead to disastrous consequences for the economy and the governance of civilized society. In any event what is being collected is a toll fee and not a tax. Another contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is arbitrary that a toll fee should be levied for the use of the eight lane National Highway No.9, particularly in the Patacheru Town area, within the GHMC. In the entirety of the affidavit, the petitioner does not cite any legal principle (nor assert in oral argument), except the vague assertion of a right under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India for contending that the exaction of toll fee is unsustainable. It is a toll fee that is being collected by the fourth respondent on being awarded the right to collect the said fee by the competent authorities. It is settled principle that toll fee is not a toll tax. The distinction between a fee and a tax is well established in legal principle. A toll fee is a measure of collection for the services rendered, namely the provision of an eight lane highway. It is not the case pleaded that the fee extracted is wholly disproportionate to the service rendered and is therefore extortionary and unconstitutional. What is discernable from the writ petition is that the residents of the neighbouring areas around the toll plaza are put to distress economically for having to pay the toll fee every time even a small stretch of the National Highway is used. Such inconveniences are more appropriately addressed to the Executive Agencies of the State. In the absence of any legal profile presented, this factual grievance of the petitioner is not amenable to judicial review. There are no merits in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dt.04.06.2009 VGB