IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.803 of 2010 Date of decision : December 6, 2010 Gurpreet Singh …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Raghunandan Gupta, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, and Mr. Ramesh Thakur, Assistant Advocate General. Surjit Singh, Judge(Oral) Petitioner was granted lease for collection of Toll Tax at Parwanoo Barrier, for the year 2009-2010. Total lease amount was `11.25 crore. Petitioner was required to pay the money in monthly instalments of `1,07,63,000/-, each. He did not deposit the monthly instalments, in full, from April to September. Shortfall for the entire period was to the tune of `1,64,28,000/-. 2. Petitioner submitted representation Annexure P-11, which is dated 16th November, 2009, for waiving off the shortfall and reducing the amount of lease money, because of less number of heavy vehicles, like trucks etc., entering the State of Himachal Pradesh, on account of extraordinary shortfall in fruit production, particularly apple. He made representation, in terms of Announcements made, Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… at the time of auction-cum-tender, for the lease of Toll Barriers. One of the conditions reads as follows: 2.10.1. In the event of any loss sustained by the toll lessee on account of law and order situation, natural calamity or by acts of God and force, the Asstt. Excise & Taxation Commissioner or the Excise & Taxation Officer I/C of the district either suo-moto or on an application made to him, with the prior approval of the Excise & Taxation Commissioner may refund any amount of lease money paid by such lessee. It was in accordance with this condition that the aforesaid representation was made. That representation has been rejected vide communication dated 18th February, 2010, copy Annexure P-15, on the ground that no provision, in the Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975, exists for grant of concession of this kind. 3. Petitioner has placed on record certain papers, indicating that on the representation of some other lessees, lease money/licence fee had been reduced, in respect of lessees of some other Toll Barriers, for the year 2009-2010. 4. Respondents have filed reply, in which it is stated that there is no provision for grant of any concession. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 6. Announcements, Annexure P-1, which were made at the time of auction and the relevant condition whereof has been reproduced hereinabove, provide for grant of concession, where the lessee incurs loss, on account of natural calamity or by acts of God and force. …3… 7. In the present case, petitioner claims concession, on the plea that because of substantial shortfall in the production of apple crop, during the relevant year, number of heavy vehicles entering State to fetch apple crop was very low and because of that he had sustained losses. Without examining this plea of the petitioner, his representation has been rejected. When Announcement had been made that in the event of loss due to natural calamity, etc., petitioner can apply for concessions, his claim ought not to have been rejected, without consideration on merits. Consequently, present writ petition is allowed and respondent No.2 is directed to decide the representation of the petitioner, on merits, in accordance with the Announcements, particularly condition No.2.10.1, made at the time of acceptance of petitioner’s tender and following the precedents of reduction of lease money of other lessees. The order be complied with, within a period of three months. Pending applications also stand disposed of, having become infructuous. December 6, 2010(sd) ( Surjit Singh ), J