IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 WP(C).No. 36746 of 2007(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- K.K.MAJEED, KARUPPAMVEETTIL, LOKAMALESWARAM, THEKKENADA, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.CHANDRAN SRI.S.SUJITH SRI.V.A.SASIDHARAN SRI.JOSEPH ALBIN NEDUNTHALLY RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, SHIPPING AND TRANSPORT(ROADS WING), TRANSPORT BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY(C) CIRCLE, KOCHI. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER N.H.(BRIDGES) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR FOR R1 MR.DILIP MOHAN, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.36746/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 26/11/2007 SENT TO THE PETITIONER. P2 : COPY OF INTIMATION DATED 19/10/2007 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER. P3 : COPY OF LETTER DATED 23/09/2006 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R3(a) : COPY OF EXTRACT OF THE REGISTER OF WORKS KEPT BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY (B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. R3(b) : COPY OF DETAILED STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NH(B) DIVISION, KODUNGALLUR. R3(c) : COPY OF JUDGMENT DATED 13/02/2009 IN WP(C) NO.23370/2006. R3(d) : COPY OF LETTER NO.A8-34/03 DATED 01/07/2009 ENCLOSING DEMAND DRAFT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 04/05/2009 TO 10/05/2009. R3(e) : COPY OF ABSTRACT OF THE REGISTER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 03/04/1987 TO 31/03/2009. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------ WP(C) No.36746 of 2007 -------------------------- Dated, this the 16th day of September, 2009 ------------------------------ J U D G M E N T Challenge in this writ petition is against the collection of fee at the Kottappuram Bridge. 2. According to the petitioner, the bridge opened on 26/04/1986 was constructed by the respondents incurring a cost of Rs.682.34 lakhs. It is stated that, so far much more than the cost incurred has already been collected by way of fee, and therefore, further collection of fee is impermissible. 3. On the otherhand, respondents have through their statement and additional statement, set up a case that though the cost incurred by them is as stated by the petitioner, they are also entitled to add interest at the rate as specified by the Ministry of Shipping Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. According to them, adding interest as above, the cost of the bridge as on 31/03/2009 is Rs.1745.4216 lakhs. As against this, according to them, the collection is only Rs.600.9321 lakhs. It is also their case that in view of the provisions contained in the WP(C) No.36746/2007 -2- National Highways Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder, they are entitled to collect fee in perpetuity. 4. Admittedly, the bridge in question is a part of National Highway-17, and in terms of the provisions contained under the National Highways Act, 1956, under Section 7 thereof, the Central Government is entitled to levy fee for services or benefits rendered on National Highways including permanent bridges. Section 9 of the Act confers power on the Central Government to make Rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act and sub Section (b) thereof enables the Central Government to fix the rate on which the fee for services is rendered in relation to use of permanent bridges as well. 5. In exercise of the rule making power, the Central Government have framed the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge - Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997, and Rule 3 thereof enables the Government to levy fee on mechanical vehicles for the use of National Highways or permanent bridges or both. Rule 11 of the Rules providing tenure of fee collection prescribes that the fee shall be collected in perpetuity by the executing agency. Although the Central Government have also framed the National Highways (Rate of Fee) WP(C) No.36746/2007 -3- Rules, 1997 enabling it to realise fee at the rate as prescribed in the table given below the Rules, since Rule 11 of the Rules referred to above enabling the executive agency to collect fee in perpetuity, so long as the Rule remains in the statute book, the petitioner cannot successfully contend that once the cost incurred for construction of the bridge has been realised, the authorities cannot collect any further fee. 6. If that be so, even if the case of the petitioner that the authorities having realised more than the cost incurred by them for the construction of the Bridge, they should be prevented from collecting fee any further, cannot be accepted. In view of Rule 11 referred to above, the petitioner cannot get any relief in this writ petition. 7. However, this judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner in approaching this Court questioning the validity of the Rule, and clarifying that this Court has not decided the issues raised on its merits, and leaving open all contentions, the writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg