Madras High Court
Virudhunagar District Bus Owners ... vs The Government Of Tamilnadu on 14 March, 2025
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 14/03/2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN
W.A(MD)Nos.1501 &1502 of 2014
and M.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 &1, 2 of 2014
and
W.A(MD)Nos. 8 &9 of 2015
and M.P(MD)Nos.1& 1 of 2015
and
W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2021
and
C.M.P(MD)Nos.2930 of 2019, 1045 of 2021 & 2639 of 2021 and
W.M.P(MD)Nos.2845 of 2021
Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association
Represented by its Secretary,
No.1/291, Pravin Sarvin Complex,
Collectorate Post,
Virudhunagar – 626 002. .. Appellant in W.A(MD)No.1501 of 2014
Madurai District Bus Owners Association
Represented by its President,
153, North Veli Street,
Madurai-1. .. Appellant in W.A(MD)No.1502 of 2014
1/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
(MC II) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Madurai- 626 002. ... Respondents in both cases
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
Act praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)Nos.6216 & 6217 of 2011 dated 31.10.2014.
In W.A(MD)Nos.1501 & 1502 of 2014:
For Appellant : Mr.M.Palani
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader for R1
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General-VI
assisted by
Mr.S.Vinayak for R2
****
2/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
W.A(MD)No.8 of 2015:
The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Madurai-625 002. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association
Represented by its Secretary,
No.1/291, Pravin Sarvin Complex,
Collectorate Post,
Virudhunagar – 626 002.
2.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
(MC II) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009. .. Respondents
W.A(MD)No.9 of 2015:
The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Madurai-625 002. .. Appellant
Vs.
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply,
(MC II) Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
3/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
2. Madurai District Bus Owners Association
Represented by its President,
153, North Veli Street,
Madurai-1. .. Respondents
COMMON PRAYER: Writ Appeals filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent
Act praying this Court to set aside the order passed by this Court in
W.P(MD)Nos.6216 & 6217 of 2011 dated 31.10.2014.
For Appellant : Mr.Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General-VI
assisted by
Mr.S.Vinayak in both cases
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader
for R2 in W.A(MD)No.8 of 2015
for R1 in in W.A(MD)No.9 of 2015
: Mr.M.Palani
for R1 in W.A(MD)No.8 of 2015
for R2 in W.A(MD)No.9 of 2015
W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2024:
Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association
Represented by its Secretary,
No.1/291, Pravin Sarvin Complex,
Collectorate Post,
Virudhunagar – 626 002. .. Petitioner
Vs.
4/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
1.The Government of Tamilnadu,
Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai- 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation,
Arignar Anna Maligai,
Madurai-625 002. .. Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari by calling for the records of the 1st
respondent made in G.O.Ms.No.25, Municipal Administration and Water
Supply Department, dated 05.02.2016 and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Palani
For Respondents : Mr.M.Sarangan
Additional Government Pleader for R1
: Mr.R.Baskaran,
Additional Advocate General-VI
assisted by
Mr.S.Vinayak for R2
5/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
COMMON JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN., J.) Virudhunagar District Bus Owners Association filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6216 of 2011 and Madurai District Bus Association filed a writ petition in W.P(MD)No.6217 of 2011. Since both the writ petitions are arising out of the same cause of action, both the writ petitions were taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. Writ petitions were filed challenging the ratification issued by the first respondent and both the writ petitions were partly allowed by the writ Court on 03.10.2014 holding that the ratification is illegal and quashed the said ratification, however denied the refund.
2. Challenging the quashing of the ratification order, the second respondent therein Madurai Corporation filed the writ appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2015 and challenging the denial of refund, the writ petitioners have filed the writ appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.1501 and 1502 of 2014 on the file of this Court.
6/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
3. Since all the appeals are arising out of the common judgment dated 03.10.2014, passed by the learned Single Judge in the above said writ petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.6216 & 6217 of 2011, all the appeals have been taken up together and disposed of by way of this common judgment.
4. In the meanwhile, pending writ appeals, the Government passed a Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.02.2016 to transfer the surplus amount of Rs.36 Crores available in ESCROW Account of inner Ring Road toll Collection into the Corporation Revenue Account by giving one time relaxation of the betterment of basic amenities to the added areas and completion of remaining 20% under Ground Drainage Works. Challenging the same, appellant in W.A(MD)No.1501 of 2014 has filed the present writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2021 to quash the G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.02.2016. The same is also the subject matter of the inner ring road. Therefore, the writ petition is also tagged along with these writ appeals and heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 7/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
5. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking in the earlier writ petitions.
6. The brief facts of case:
The second respondent decided to have an integrated bus stand and consequently, a new bus stand was established in the place of Mattuthavani. It is situated 10 km from the Central Bus stand. If one goes through the interior part of the City and further to ease the traffic congestion, the inner ring road had been formed on the northern side of Madurai and that ring road connects Kanniyakumari National Highway ie., NH 47 at a place called Kappalurpirivu. As far as the Aruppukkottai sector is concerned, the same is connected at a place called Mandela Nagar Pirivu NH 45B. Therefore, the buses which are coming from Aruppukkottai sector and Thirumangalam Sector instead of going inside the City to reach Mattuthavani Bus stand, are directed to via ring road. In case of buses plying on Thirumangalam sector, they have to take diversion from Kappalurpirivu which is near Thirumangalam and in case of Aruppukkottai sector, they have to take diversion from Mandela 8/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Nagar Pirivu to reach Mattuthavani sector. This ring road was opened for public and vehicular operation from 01.11.2000 in pursuant to G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 23.10.2000. For using the ring road a toll fee is also fixed thereunder.
7. In terms of the said notification, in respect of the stage carriages that are plying in between the Madurai and Aruppukkottai sector, the fee was initially fixed at the rate of 40 per single operation and in case where an operator operates 3 or more singles per day, it was fixed at the rate of Rs120/- per day which is per single by 3. Similarly, in the case of Thirumangalam sector, if it is a single trip, the fee is Rs.50/- and Rs.150/- per day, if it is 3 and above. Further, in the said G.O., an escalation was provided at the rate of 8% for every year. The notification itself provides for escalation at the rate of 8% for every year and in terms of the said notification, at the beginning of 6th year, the toll fee for using the ring road in respect of the Aruppukottai Sector, it was at Rs.225/- whereas in the case of Thirumangalam and Virudhuangar sector, it was Rs.375/-. Further, a reading of the said Government Order would show that the notification under which the 2nd 9/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) respondent is empowered to collect toll fee is only for 5 years as seen from paragraph 2 of the notification. Even the same is contemplated in the appendix notification. Further, in the schedule provided under the Notification contains toll fee collection only for 5 years with escalation of 8% at every year.
8. The collection of toll fee is done or undertaken in terms of Indian Tolls Act, 1851(hereinafter referred to as Toll Act) under which Section 2 of the Tolls Act as amended by the Government of Tamil Nadu which mandates the Government to make notification in the official Gazette regarding fixing of user fee for using the public road which is constructed at the cost of its exchequer. In terms of the said Section, the Government issued notification in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette Extraordinary No.754 dated 23.10.2010. The said notification is issued as required under clause (b) of sub-Section 1 and clause (b) of sub-Section 2 of Section 2 of the Toll Act. A bare perusal of the said notification would go to show that the notification was effective on and from 01.11.2000 and remained in force upto and inclusive of 31.12.2005. Under the said notification, it enabled the 2nd respondent to 10/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) collect the toll fee for a period prescribed thereunder. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent, if want to make any further collection from the road user regarding the mechanically propelled vehicles on the Inner Ring Road, the Government once again has to publish the notification in terms of clause (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 2 of the Toll Act, otherwise, the 2nd respondent has no jurisdiction to collect the toll fee. However, the 2nd respondent, without any notification or sanction from the 1st respondent, proceeded to collect toll fee from the users of mechanically propelled vehicles including that of the Members of the Petitioner Bus Association herein even after expiry of the said notification. Therefore, aggrieved by the unauthorized and illegal collection of the toll fee by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner association and its sister Association viz. Madurai District Bus Owners Association filed writ petitions on the file of this Court in W.P.(MD)Nos.3161 and 3162 of 2010 seeking mandamus to forbear the 2nd respondent from collecting any toll fee from the members of the petitioner association in the absence of any notification issued by the 1st respondent as required under Section 2 of the Toll Act as amended by the Government of Tamil Nadu and also sought to refund for the illegal, 11/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) unauthorized collection and unjustified enrichment made by the 2nd respondent therein. This Court, by judgement dated 03.02.2010, dismissed the writ petitions on the ground that the writ petition filed by the Association is not maintainable and as well as the petitioner has not established that the 2nd respondent is collecting toll fee without authority of law.
9. Aggrieved by the same, this petitioner Association and its sister Association had filed writ appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.41 and 42 of 2011. During the pendency of the writ appeals, especially in the month of February, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent produced an order before this Court and submitted that the collection of toll for the period from 01.12.2005 to 31.10.2010 was ratified by the Government and consequently, the collection by the 2nd respondent was done within its jurisdiction and therefore pleaded for dismissal of the writ appeals.
10. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner challenged the said notification along with its sister association namely, Madurai District Bus 12/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Owners Association, in W.P.(MD).No.6216 & 6217 of 2011 before this Court.
This Court though held by judgment dated 03.10.2014 that the ratification is illegal and quashed the said ratification, however, denied the refund. Aggrieved by this, the petitioner filed W.A.(MD) Nos.1501 and 1502 of 2014 before this Court, while the Corporation filed W.A.(MD) Nos. 8 and 9 of 2015, challenging the order of the learned Single Judge setting aside the ratification order .
11. During the pendency of the above writ appeals, the 1st respondent under the impugned Government order directed the 2 nd respondent to transfer the surplus amount of Rs.36.00 crores of inner ring road toll collection into the Corporation General Revenue Account for the betterment of basic amenities to the added areas. The petitioner submits that this G.O. brought to the notice of this Court by filing of petition to receive documents during the month of March, 2019. When the writ appeals are taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent raised a technical plea and contend that the Government has already enabled the 2nd respondent to transfer 13/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) the surplus fund collected from toll user on the ring road to the General Revenue of Corporation and consequently, the writ appeal for refund of the amount is not maintainable. Challenging the G.O.Ms.No.25 dated 05.02.2016, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.3541 of 2021 has been filed.
12. The case of the first respondent as per their counter filed in the writ petition is as follows:
12.1. The Government by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.149 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 23.10.2000 had accorded administrative sanction for the purpose of forming inner ring road in Madurai Corporation. The inner ring road is a stretch of 27.20 km connecting the link roads between Melur and Kanyakumari and three National Highways and two State Highways and one major District Road as well. This inner ring road is useful for the benefit of general public as well as for the movement of economic goods and for decongestion of traffic also. From Uthangudi, Madurai Junction to Kappalur bridge Ring Road for a stretch of around 27.20 km was proposed at an estimated cost of Rs.47.35 crore. The project was 14/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) commenced in the year 2000 after obtaining a loan of Rs.29 crore. In order to meet out the repayment of loan amount to the tune of Rs.29 crore, the Madurai Corporation has issued Debentures to the tune of Rs.27.00 crore and Tamil Nadu Urban Development Fund sanctioned Rs.2.00 crore. The loan amount of Rs.29.00 crore at an interest rate of 12.5% was obtained by the Madurai Corporation and Government had ratified the same in G.O.Ms.No.80, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 07.05.2001.
As per G.O.Ms.No.149, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 23.10.2000, the Madurai Corporation is entitled to collect toll for 15 years, i.e., 01.11.2000 to 22.01.2015 on various vehicles like Car, van etc. Totally, in 30 installments interest to the tune of Rs.2,13,50,741/- was paid by the Corporation and successfully completed the project. When the matter stood thus, the present Writ Petitioner has filed W.P.(MD)Nos.6216 and 6217 of 2011 forbearing the Corporation from collecting the toll. The said Writ Petition was dismissed on the sole ground that the said petitions filed by the Association are not maintainable. Hence, W.A.(MD)Nos.41 & 42 of 2011 have been filed by the Petitioner Association and ultimately, this Court had 15/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) permitted the Madurai Corporation to collect the toll amount and the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29. Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department Dated 31.01.2011 was also considered by Division Bench of this Court.
12.2. In W.P.(MD)Nos.6216 and 6217 of 2017 challenge was made against the Government Order in G.O.Ms.No.29, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 31.01.2011 wherein the Government had ratified and permitted the Corporation to collect the toll from the year 2005 to 2010. The learned Single Judge had quashed the said order of the Government by observing that the Government cannot ratify by way of Government Order and it amounts to retrospective operation. As far as the Writ Petitioner's prayer for refund of toll amount is concerned, it was negatived. Hence, Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD) No.1501 of 2014 and W.A.(MD) No.1502 of 2014 were filed by the present writ petitioner. In the meantime, the Corporation has filed Writ Appeals in W.A.(MD)Nos.8 & 9 of 2015 challenging the order of the learned Single Judge, quashing G.O.Ms.No.29, 16/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 31.01.2011.
Accordingly, all the four writ appeals have been tagged together along with this present Writ Petition. As per the order made in W.P.(MD)Nos.6216 & 6217 of 2017, this Court had directed the Corporation not to collect toll charges in-excessive of loan amount and ultimately the toll has been closed from 22.01.2015 onwards.
12.3. As on today, the ring road has further been developed as a four track and maintained properly by the Government. A sum of Rs.36,15,85,662/- surplus amount kept in ESCROW account was transferred to the Corporation Revenue Account. The Corporation Council being the elected body had also passed a Resolution No.1097, Dated 12.01.2016 and sent to the Government for approval. Accordingly, the Government vide G.O.Ms.No.25, Municipal & Water Supply Department, Dated 05.02.2016, as a one time relaxation, had permitted the Corporation to transfer the excess amount to the tune of Rs.36.00 crore fund from ESCROW to Corporation Revenue Account. Admittedly, the said toll amount has been collected during 17/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) the period commencing from 01.11.2000 to 22.01.2015 as per G.O.Ms.No.149 of Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 23.10.2000, which enabled the Corporation to collect the toll amount for 15 years. It is further stated that the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.25, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department, Dated 05.02.2016 by considering the importance of implementing the public project. The Government had granted permission to the Corporation to utilise the surplus amount of Rs.36.00 crore for implementing the Underground Drainage Project, since the finances of Corporation was very much in deficit and unable to continue the Underground Drainage Project during that point of time. Taking into consideration of budget and financial position of the Madurai Corporation, the Government permitted to utilize the surplus amount for the welfare of public. The Corporation had utilized the fund and successfully implemented the project. The Writ Petition has been filed challenging the said order of the Government after lapse of 5 years from the date of issuance. Hence, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of laches. As mentioned supra, the entire surplus amount was utilized only for the 18/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) welfare of general public by implementing the drainage and other works. The Government had fully considered the financial deficit of Madurai Corporation and permitted utilization of the surplus fund. The Corporation had collected the toll amount for 15 years, from the year 2000 to 2015 which is well within the power and authority. Hence, the Writ Petition filed by the Association is not maintainable.
13. Mr.M.Palani, learned counsel for the appellants/Bus Owners Association would submit that the notification issued by the first respondent dated 31.07.2011 is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. Though the learned single Judge held that the notification issued by the first respondent dated 31.01.2011 is illegal, however, failed to order refund of the amount collected from the appellants' association from 01.12.2005 till the date. The fixation of toll rate with retrospective effect is illegal. The learned single Judge also accepted the same however, he negatived the claim of refund and also held that ratification of the impugned notification even as on the date of the publication is not in consonance with either the provisions or the earlier 19/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) notification and any levy of toll, taxes, charges or fee cannot be made except with the authority of law. Ratification of illegal act performed in violation of law, is serious threat to the rule of law and it would lead violation of law at many levels and also pave way for corruption. The ratification issued through the impugned notification is totally illegal and without jurisdiction. The levy made in between 31.12.2005 till date is not valid and any subsequent notification issued under Section 2(2) of the Indian Tolls Act can be only prospective and not retrospective. It is the specific case of the appellants that the surplus of Rs.14 Crores collected from the users of ring road is kept seperate and had it been utilized in discharging of the loan amount, the entire burden of the second respondent would have been discharged way back and thereafter, the corporation ought to have collected only for maintenance cost for the use of the road. The appellants obtained information under the RTI Act about the collection of user fees to the inner ring road from 01.11.2000 to 30.04.2014 which comes around a sum of Rs.120,78,82,710.80 paise whereas the second respondent has to pay only a sum of Rs.64,05,22,304.70 paise inclusive interest towards the borrowed amount and thus when the corporation 20/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) achieved the target of the reimbursement of the loan amount long time back, still the corporation collects the user fee at the enhanced rate of 8% every year and further allowing it to continue collection does amount to making unjust enrichment out of mechanically propelled vehicle owners who use the ring road and consequently, the respondents have no jurisdiction to make any further collection for using the ring road. The amount borrowed by way of bond is only Rs.29 Crores and the said amount has to be paid with interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum within 15 years and the amounts to be paid with interest thereon all put together comes to a sum of Rs.64,05,22,304.70 paise whereas the corporation has already collected Rs.120,78,82,710.80 paise. The permission granted by the first respondent to collect further amount in case the debt is not discharged which is totally unsound and untenable warrant interference of this Court. The enhancement of 8% of every year on the collection of user fee is not automatic, but should be decided after taking into consideration the collection of user fees for the use of the ring road every year and from such it has to be seen whether it warrants enhancement of interest or not. In the instant case, in as much as having no such exercise having been 21/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) taken by the corporation and it mechanically increased the user fees by 8% every year. The same is in gross violation of the Government Order dated 23.10.2000. The second respondent under letter dated 25.05.2010 furnished details of cost of project for building inner ring road and toll fee collection from 01.11.2000 to 31.12.2009. The loan repaid from 01.11.2000 to 31.12.2009, total maintenance cost of the ring road from 2001-2002 till 2009-2010 etc., and in terms of the above letter, the maintenance cost incurred for Rs.2001-2002 to 2009-2010 is as follows:
Year Amount
Rs.
2001-2002 7,30,000/-
2002-2003 7,30,000/-
2003-2004 7,30,000/-
2004-2005 7,30,000/-
2005-2006 1,50,000/-
2006-2007 3,23,000/-
2007-2008 4,73,000/-
2008-2009 4,73,000/-
2009-2010 4,73,000/-
Total 48,12,000/-
22/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
14. The above statement would go to show that the amount incurred for the maintenance for ring road is maximum Rs.7,30,000/- and minimum is Rs.1,50,000/- and the total maintenance cost for the said period is Rs.48,12,000/- whereas under the present letter dated 16.06.2014, it comes to around a sum of Rs.4,77,59,263.31/- per year and the same would establish that all is not well in Denmark's Kingdom and that there is somewhere something wrong committed by the 2nd respondent and therefore, the collection of user fee for using the ring road is nothing but to make unjust enrichment by the Corporation out of the hard earned money of the mechanically propelled vehicle owners who are using the same. The learned counsel for the appellants got details under the Right to Information Act, under letter dated 16.06.2014, it had obtained information regarding the total amount collected and as well as the expenditure incurred (not known whether it is exclusively for ring road or inclusive of corporation expenses) and the loan amount discharged. In terms of the above letter the expenditure incurred is given as follows:
23/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) From 3.7.2001 to 31.10. 2005 (for 4 years) Rs. 7,54,96,423 From 1.11.2005 to 31.10.2010 (for 5 years) Rs. 29,45,40,974 From 1.11.2010 to 31.3.2014 (for 4 years) Rs. 25,08,32,896
------------------------
Rs. 62,08,70,293
------------------------
Loan amount discharged is as follows:
From 2001 to 2004-05 = 42701486 x 4 Rs.17,08,04,744
From 2005-06 to 2009-10 = 42701486 x 5 Rs.21,35,06,230
From 2010-11 to 2014-2014 = 42701486 x 4 Rs.17,08,04,744
---------------------
Rs.55,51,15,718
----------------------
15.A bare perusal of the expenditure as shown above would go to show that a sum of Rs.62,08,70,293/- has been spent as expenditure for a period of 13 years out of the revenue generated from the inner ring road which comes around to a sum of Rs.120,78,82,710.80/-. He would further submit that the average expenditure shown per year is Rs.4,77,59,263.31/- and this Court may take judicial notice of the awesome position of the ring road which is with full of pits and falls and non-motorable one for which it alleges an expenditure of Rs.4,77,59,250/- per year which implies the ring road is used as 24/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) an instrument/tool for siphoning out the revenue generated from the ring road and consequently, the expenditure shown is nothing but an illusionary or imaginary on the ring road to shield other purposes other than its use. A bare perusal of the statement would go to show that for the first 4 years the expenditure incurred was Rs.7,54,96,324/- (Rs.1,88,74,081/- per year) whereas for the subsequent period of 5 years and 4 years respectively, it is alleged that Rs.29,45,40,974/- (per year Rs.5,89,08,194.80) and Rs. 25,08,32,896/-(per year Rs.6,27,08,224/-) which would go to show that there is some suspicion on the expenditure shown on the Inner Ring Road for the subsequent 5 years and 4 years which requires deep probe.
16. The learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents would submit that the Bus Owners Association have not challenged the G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 23.10.2000, which empowers the Corporation to collect toll for the period of 15 years. He further relied on the previous Division Bench judgment of this Court held in W.A.No.41 & 42 of 2011 in para 16 & 18 as follows:
25/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) “16. As we have already discussed and as per the extracted portion of the Government Order, the collection of toll fee shall be in force only for a period of 15 years with an annual increase at the rate of 8% for the first five years and a decision will be taken as to whether the annual increase could be continued at the same rate of 8% even after five years. Admittedly, the second respondent Corporation has not applied for extension of the period of notification and the Government has not authorized to collect toll fee at the new rate. However, from the arguments advanced we are able to see that after ratification ie., from 01.11.2010, a new tariff has been fixed by the Corporation. However, for fixing the new tariff the second respondent corporation has not obtained any permission from the Government. Therefore in our considered opinion, the earlier toll fee already fixed with increase in one stage of 8% levied and collected by the second respondent Corporation cannot be said to be illegal, in view of the ratification given by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.29, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MN-2), Department, dated 31.01.2011. However, the second respondent Corporation is entitled to collect toll fee, which was regularized by the Government in G.O.Ms.No.29, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MN-2) Department, dated 31.01.2011 from 01.11.2010, till it is 26/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) enhanced by the Government. It is made clear that Madurai Corporation is entitled to collect toll fee as on 31.10.2005 with 8% increase.
18. The purpose of construction of over bridges is to avoid the congestion in the city. In the case on hand, for laying of the ring road, the expenditure was stated to be Rs.47.35 Crores. Therefore, in our considered opinion, the collection of toll fee from the public, who use such over bridge, cannot be held to be against the provisions of law. But before enhancing the toll fee, prior approval from the Government has to be obtained. Now the Municipal Corporation has already applied to the Government for ratification and for extension of the period from 01.11.2010. Until it is approved, it is made clear that the second respondent is permitted to collect the toll fee as on 31.10.2005 with 8% increase until further orders from the Government with immediate effect.”
17. The above findings are binding on the parties in this case. The learned Single Judge had misconstrued and arrived that G.O.Ms.No.29 is in retrospective nature. There is distinction between retrospective and ratification. Section 2 of the Toll Act did not say prior notification is required.
According to him, Government can ratify or issue notification by post facto. 27/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) The learned single Judge failed to consider that the corporation has not collected any excess or surplus amount after the closure of toll (22.01.2015). The said collection is within the period from 01.11.2000 to 22.01.2005(15 years) and not collected after repayment of loan. The total collection is Rs. 1,35,25,84,021/- from 01.11.2000 to 22.01.2015. But the expenditure met by corporation is Rs.1,40,49,60,630/-. So expenditure is more than the collection amount till 2016, Corporation paid installments for loan obtained. The alleged surplus amount of Rs.36.00 Crores is not an excess collection, it is an interest and accrued interest earned in the ESCROW account by the corporation from the collection for the period commencing from 2000 to 2015. Totally Rs. 41,29,62,271/- was balance amount upto 27 installments, which is only an interest amount for all the 15 years.
18. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that the writ petitioners earlier filed W.P.No.3162 of 2010. The prayer in that writ petition forbearing the 2nd respondent from collecting or demanding the toll fee in terms of notification dated 23.10.2000 passed by the 28/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) respondent in G.O.Ms.No.149, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department for stage carriers of the members of the petitioners' Association who are using inner ring road in Madurai City while operating their respective routes and further, directing to return the toll fee collected from the members of the petitioner Association from 01.11.2005 to till date with interest accrued thereon. The said writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of maintainability alone. Thereafter, the petitioner Association filed Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.41 & 42 of 2011. In that proceedings, the Division Bench has partly allowed with regard to maintainability of writ petition alone. The Division Bench has held that writ petition filed by the Association is maintainable. But the findings rendered by the Division Bench is in favour of the Corporation and the Corporation was allowed to collect the toll fee. G.O.Ms.No.29 was considered by the Division Bench in para No.16 & 18 of its Judgment. The refund was not ordered by the Division Bench. For the very same relief, there cannot be second round of litigation. Hence, Writ Appeals in W.A.No.1501 & 1502 of 2014 against writ petitions in W.P.No.6216 & 6217 of 2011 are not maintainable.
29/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
19. The learned Additional Government Pleader would further submit that writ petitioners Association having paid the toll fee from 01.11.2005 to 31.10.2010 cannot maintain a writ petition after paying the amount that too after the lapse of 6 years. The calculation details given by the Association is not correct and the same is denied. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that toll amount cannot be used as augmenting the State Revenue, Admittedly, the Government has not issued the G.O.Ms.No.25, Municipal Administration and Water Supply Department dated 05.02.2016 for augmenting the revenue. Hence, the Supreme Court judgment relied by the petitioners Association is not applicable and the Government has got prerogative to transfer the funds for the welfare of the State.
20. Adding further, the learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that Section 8 of Toll Act says toll amount levied is a public revenue. Further, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied on by the writ petitioner Association reported in 2000 (3) SCC 5 will not be applicable. In fact, the said decision supports the Government only. It says in 'para 9' that 30/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Toll collected is a part of the public revenue and may be absorbed in general revenue of the State and it cannot be used for augmenting the State Revenue. Admittedly, the Government or Corporation has not utilized the Rs.36 Crores for augmenting the revenue. It is only transferring the fund to revenue account for Drainage Project in Madurai Corporation. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the writ appeals filed by the Associations.
21. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the records.
22. The main contention of the learned counsel for the Bus owners Association is that the amount collected in toll can be utilized for maintenance alone and excess amount collected cannot be utilized for any other purpose. It is his further contention that without any authority of law, no tax can be levied from 2005-2011 and corporation has no authority to collect the toll fee without any fresh notification by the Government. Therefore, the amount collected during that period has to be refunded and the learned single 31/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Judge rightly held that after the first period of notification, subsequent collection of toll fee for the subsequent period is illegal and ratification to the subsequent period is also illegal. However, he failed to order refund the excess payment collected during the unauthorised period. In support of his argument, he placed reliance of the following judgments:
1. AIR2008SCC1343 [Delhi Development Authority, N.D. & Anr vs Joint Action Committee, Allottee Of Sfs Flats and others]
2. 2022(9)SCC341 [Union of India and others v. Willowood Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., and another]
3. 2009(10)SCC755 [Commissioner of Income Tax, Udaipur, Rajasthan v. MCDOWELL and Company Ltd.,]
23. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the Corporation made reliance on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) National Institute of Technology and another v. Pannalal Choudhury and another, reported in 2015 (11) SCC 669, wherein in paragraph Nos.28 to 33, it is held as under:
32/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
28. That apart, the issue in question could be examined from yet another angle by applying the law relating to "Ratification" which was not taken note of by the High Court.
29. The expression “Ratification” means “the making valid of an act already done”. This principle is derived from the Latin maxim “ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur” meaning thereby “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.” It is for this reason; the ratification assumes an invalid act, which is retrospectively validated.
30. The expression “ratification” was succinctly defined by the English Court in one old case, Hartman Vs. Hornsby reported in 142 Mo 368 44 SW 242, 244 as under:
“ ‘Ratification’ is the approval by act, word, or conduct, of that which was attempted (of accomplishment), but which was improperly or unauthorisedly performed in the first instance.”
31. The law of ratification was applied by this Court in Parmeshwari Prasad Gupta Vs. U.O.I(1973) 2 SCC 543. In that case, the Chairman of the Board of Directors had terminated the services of the General Manager of a Company pursuant to a resolution taken by the Board at a meeting. It was not in dispute that the meeting had been improperly held and consequently the resolution passed in the said meeting 33/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) terminating the services of General Manager was invalid. However, the Board of Directors then convened subsequent meeting and in this meeting affirmed the earlier resolution, which had been passed in improper meeting. On these facts, the Court held, “Even if it be assumed that the telegram and the letter terminating the services of the appellant by the Chairman was in pursuance of the invalid resolution of the Board of Directors passed on 16-12-1953 to terminate his services, it would not follow that the action of the Chairman could not be ratified in a regularly convened meeting of the Board of Directors.
The point is that even assuming that the Chairman was not legally authorised to terminate the services of the appellant, he was acting on behalf of the Company in doing so, because, he purported to act in pursuance of the invalid resolution. Therefore, it was open to a regularly constituted meeting of the Board of Directors to ratify that action which, though unauthorised, was done on behalf of the Company. Ratification would always relate back to the date of the act ratified and so it must be held that the services of the appellant were validly terminated on 17-12-1953.” This view was approved by this Court in High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Vs. P.P. Singh & Anr. (2003) 4 SCC 239.
34/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
32. The aforesaid principle of law of ratification was again applied by this Court in Maharashtra State Mining Corpn. Vs. Sunil (2006) 5 SCC 96. In this case, the respondent was an employee of the appellant Corporation. Consequent to a departmental enquiry, he was dismissed by the Managing Director of the appellant. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Board of Directors of the appellant Corporation passed a resolution ratifying the impugned action of the Managing Director and also empowering him to take decision in respect of the officers and staff in the grade of pay the maximum of which did not exceed Rs. 4700 p.m. Earlier, the Managing Director had powers only in respect of those posts where the maximum pay did not exceed Rs.1900 p.m. The respondent at the relevant time was drawing more than Rs.1800 p.m. Therefore, at the relevant time, the Managing Director was incompetent to dismiss the respondent. Accordingly, the High Court held the order of dismissal to be invalid. The High Court further held that the said defect could not be rectified subsequently by the resolution of the Board of Directors. The High Court set aside the dismissal order and granted consequential relief. The appellant then filed the appeal in this Court 35/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) by special leave. Justice Ruma Pal, speaking for three- Judge Bench, while allowing the appeal and setting aside of the Court held as under :
“The High Court rightly held that an act by a legally incompetent authority is invalid. But it was entirely wrong in holding that such an invalid act could not be subsequently “rectified” by ratification of the competent authority. Ratification by definition means the making valid of an act already done. The principle is derived from the Latin maxim ratihabitio mandato aequiparatur, namely, “a subsequent ratification of an act is equivalent to a prior authority to perform such act.” Therefore, ratification assumes an invalid act which is retrospectively validated.” “In the present case, the Managing Director’s order dismissing the respondent from service was admittedly ratified by the Board of Directors unquestionably had the power to terminate the services of the respondent. Since the order of the Managing Director had been ratified by the Board of Directors such ratification related back to the date of the order and validated it.”
33. Applying the aforementioned law of ratification to the facts at hand, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the order of dismissal dated 16.08.1996 was passed by the Principal & Secretary who had neither any authority to pass such order under the Rules nor there was any authorization given by the BOG in his favour to pass such order yet in our considered view when the BOG in their meeting held on 22.08.1996 approved the previous actions of the Principal & Secretary in passing the respondent's dismissal order dated 16.08.1996, all the irregularities complained of by the respondent in the proceedings including the authority exercised by the Principal & Secretary to dismiss him stood ratified by the Competent Authority (Board of Governors) themselves with retrospective effect from 16.8.1996 thereby making an invalid act a lawful one in conformity with the procedure prescribed in Rules.” 36/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) (2). Shri Malaprabha Coop Sugar Factory Ltd., v. Union of India and another, reported in 1994 (1) SCC 648, wherein in paragraph No. 110, it is held as under:
“110. Though normally we would have quashed the notifications mere quashing of the notifications would lead to nebulous situation during the interregnum till the refixation of price we are obliged to give the above direction. In this connection we may usefully quote the following passage occurring at page 294 of Judicial Remedies in Public Law by Clive Lewis:
“The courts now recognise that the impact on the administration is relevant in the exercise of their remedial jurisdiction. Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burdens on the administration, divert resources towards re-opening decision, and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. Earlier cases took the robust line that the law had to be observed, and the decision invalidated Whatever the administrative inconvenience caused. The courts nowadays recognise that such an approach is not always appropriate and may not be in the wider public interest. The effect on the administrative process is relevant to the courts' remedial discretion and may prove decisive.”
24. Admittedly, Madurai Corporation established 27.20 km length of inner ring road under notification in G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 23.10.2010. In the meeting held on 15.04.2000 under the Chairmanship of the Secretary to Government, Finance Department in which the Secretaries to Government, 37/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Municipal Administration and Water Supply and Transport Departments, Commissioner of Municipal Administration, Chief Executive Officer, TNUDF and Assistant Executive Engineer (Planning) of the Madurai Corporation were participated to discuss the above proposal of the Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai. In the said meeting the following decisions were taken :
(a) The Weighted Average Method of fixation of tolls can be adopted.
(b) Tolls can be notified initially for a period of 5 years from the year 2000.
(c) An 8% annual escalation on toll rates can be adopted. This can be reviewed after the period of 5 years.
(d) Initially for a period of a year, Madurai Corporation may collect the tolls through M/s.Tamil Nadu Ex-servicemen Corporation (TEXCO) or any other agency and take a decision.
38/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
25. The said decision were communicated and the Government D.O. Letter No.12113/MC2/99-38, Municipal Administration and Water Supply, (MC-II) Department, dated 22.05.2000 to the Commissioner, Corporation of Madurai. Accordingly, the Commissioner of the Corporation has in his letter dated 16.06.2000 informed the Government that the Council, in its Resolution No.225 dated 09.06.2000 has resolved to accept the toll rate fixed under the 'Weighted Average Method' with a small change in some cases. The Commissioner has also conveyed the approval of the Council for the collection of the revised toll rates for 5 years with an increase at the rate of 8% per year and for undertaking the responsibility of collection of these toll rates by Madurai Corporation itself through M/s.Tamilnadu Ex-servicemen Corporation (TEXCO) initially for first one year(2000-2001).
26. Under sub Sections 1(b) & 2(b) of Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Central Act VIII of 1851) as amended by the Tamil Nadu Ordinance 8 of 2000, the following should be taken into consideration by the Government to fix the toll rate for this type of projects; viz., (1) Capital cost of 39/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) the project, (2) Interest thereon and (3) Other amounts as fixed by the Government.
27. Based on the details mentioned above and as per Section 2 of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851 (Central Act VIII of 1851) as amended by Tamil Nadu Ordinance 8 of 2000, the Government, after careful consideration of the proposal, received from the Commissioner of Madurai Corporation in this regard passed the following orders:
(a) To Collect the Toll Rates as fixed under Weighted Average Method an as revised and accepted by the Council of Madurai Corporation in its Resolution No.225, dated 9.6.2000 and mentioned in the Schedules of Appendix to this order for the different stretches of motor vehicles passing through the newly built Inner Ring Road connecting Melur-Sivaganga Ramanathapuram-
Nedungulam-Aruppukottai- Kanniyakumari roads. The collection of tolls shall be in force for 15 years with an annual increase @ 8% for the first five years. A decision will be taken later whether the annual increase be continued at the same rate of 8% even after years.
40/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
(b) To collect daily multiple toll rates at three times of single trip rates approved by Council for motor vehicles passing through the roads many times. In a day and monthly multiple toll rates at thirty times of this three times (daily multiple) rate for motor vehicles passing through the roads many times in a month as mentioned in the Schedules 2 and 3 respectively of Appendix to this order.
(c) The Collection of these Toll rates will take effect from 01.11.2000.
(d) The Notification with details of Toll Rates to be collected as appended to this order will be published in the Extraordinary issue dated 23.10.2000 of the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette. The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation is hereby instructed to publish the Notification in the District Gazette based on this;
(e) To permit the Corporation of Madurai to collect these toll rates initially for one year (2000-2001) through M/s.Tamil Nadu Ex-Servicemen Corporation. A decision will be taken later at the appropriate time on the collection of toll rates for the subsequent years through a private person/agency on contract basis under open tender system.
(f) The Chief Executive Officer, TNUDF is hereby requested to examine the possibilities of installing automatic vehicle 41/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) counters at the Toll Plaza locations to avoid any leakage of toll revenue.
(g) After taking, into account of the volume of toll collection and the adequacy of these amount for the Corporation to se vice its debt., a decision will be taken later as to whether the rate of annual increase should be calculated at the same 8% Level or be reduced.
(h) The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation is hereby instructed to send quarterly report to the Government on the 15th of January, April, July and October every year furnishing the receipt of income from toll collection and its sufficiency to service the debt.
(i) The Commissioner, Madurai Corporation is also hereby instructed to take necessary action at the appropriate time to send the proposals to the Government through Commissioner for Municipal Administration for Grant, if the toll collection is insufficient to service the debt;
(j) As the newly built Inner Ring Road and the Bridges ar owned by the Corporation, the responsibility for taking necessary action to collect the Tolls is vested with Corporation alone so as to enable it to repay its loan within the stipulated period.
42/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
(k) Tolls to be collected from the 6th year for the remaining period of 10 years shall be notified later based on the decision on 10(g) above.
28. Based on that the Tamilnadu Government published the notification in the Gazette dated 23.10.2000 and the toll rates for vehicles also fixed in the said notification. As per para 2 of the said notification, it commenced from 1st November 2000 and shall remain in force inclusive of 31st October 2005. As per the said notification, the second respondent collected the toll fees and there is no dispute on that. Thereafter, after the expiry of the period, the second respondent continued to collect the toll fee and without any fresh notification and thereafter, the Government issued ratification order vide G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 31.01.2011 ratified the collection of the toll from 01.11.2005 till 31.10.2010 which was under challenge in the writ petition. Though the earlier writ petitions were dismissed by this Court on the ground that the Bus Owners Association has no locus standi to challenge the same. Subsequently, the appellants filed the present subject matter of the appeals, the writ petitions and the learned Single Judge, after considering the facts 43/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) elaborately and discussed about the provisions of law and also factual aspects and legal aspects, hold that without any notification, the second respondent collected the toll fees which was ratified by the first respondent after 5 years. Therefore, the ratification was declared as illegal, however, failed to order refund of amount. Therefore, the present writ appeals. The appellants filed two appeals and the respondents filed two appeals. Challenging the refusal of refund, two appeals filed by the appellants. Challenging the quashing of notification, the respondents filed the two writ appeals. Subsequently, in the meanwhile, the excess amount was ordered to be utilized for some other purpose. Challenging the same, the separate writ petition was filed by the appellants.
29. Now the core question is that as to whether the ratification order passed by the first respondent in G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 31.01.2011 is valid and without any notification, the second respondent collected the toll fee whether it can be ordered to be refunded. The original notification between 01.11.2000 to 31.10.2005 was not in dispute whereas the original Government 44/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Abstract, in G.O.Ms.No.149 Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC.II) Department, dated 23.10.2000, the Government passed the order in which the Government referred the various resolutions and how the toll fee has to be collected for the period for which the amount was collected, subsequently the same was notified in the public Gazette dated 23.10.2000. At para 10 of the notification, in Clause (a), it is clearly stated that to collect the toll rates as fixed under Weighted Average Method as revised and accepted by the Council of Madurai Corporation in its Resolution No.225 dated 09.06.2000 and as mentioned in the Schedules of Appendix to this order for the different stretches of motor vehicles passing through the newly built inner ring road connecting Melur-Sivaganga, Ramanathapuram-Nedungulam- Aruppukottai, for 15 years with an annual increase at 8% for the first five years. A decision will be taken later whether the annual increase be continued at the same rate of 8% even after 5 years.
30. Clause (g) of the notification reads as follows:
(g) After taking into account of the volume of toll collection and the adequacy of these amounts for the Corporation to service its debt, a 45/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) decision will be taken later as to whether the rate of annual increase should be calculated at the same 8% level or be reduced.
31. Clause (k) of the notification reads as follows:
(k) Tolls to be collected from the 6th year for the remaining period of 10 years shall be notified later based on the decision on 10(g) above.
32. The above clause 10(k) clearly shows that collection of toll shall be in force for 15 years with an annual increase. Reading of Clause 10(g) shows that a decision will be taken later as to whether the rate of annual increase should be calculated with 8% level or be reduced. Toll to be collected from 6th year of the remaining of 10 years shall be notified later based on the provisions contained in Clause 10(g). A plain reading of these three Clauses in para No.10, it is made clear that already the Government has decided that the collection of toll shall be in force for 15 years. Thereafter, with regard to the calculation of annual increase whether at the same 8% or to be reduced or increased would depends upon the circumstances and the vehicle users. 46/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) However, the facts show that after 5 years, the remaining period shall be notified later based on the Government decisions. Therefore, since the second respondent was permitted to lay a ring road and also the first notification was between the year 2000-2005 and permitted the Corporation to collect the toll fee and for the subsequent period of 10 years subject to the income from the road users, 8% can be raised or decreased. However, the remaining collections are intact. Therefore, after completing the period between 01.11.2000 till 31.10.2005, the Corporation did not meet out the funds spent for laying the inner ring road. Hence, they continued to collect the toll and later the first respondent ratified the same by the order dated 31.01.2011. Therefore, the ratification order is under challenge.
33. There is no quarrel with the proposition that the levy of tax cannot be done without any authority of law and also passed the order on retrospective effective. A close reading of para 10 of the ABSTRACT in G.O.Ms.No.149, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC-II) Department, dated 23.10.2000, shows that there is authority to collect toll fee. 47/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) However, soon after the completion of the first period, the first respondent failed to issue a fresh notification regarding collection of toll fee. But, later on the first respondent passed a ratification order. Therefore it cannot be stated as illegality. At the same time, it can be stated as irregularity. In the settled preposition of law, the illegality would not be ratified later whereas the irregularity can be ratified by the action of the respondents. In this case, the ratification was ordered on 31.01.2011. Once ratification can be ordered if there is irregularity on the side of the respondents. However, the learned Single Judge finds the action of the respondents as illegality. As already stated reading of para 10 of the ABSTRACT in G.O.Ms.No.149 dated 23.10.2000, toll collection could be 15 years. Once in 5 years, it can be reviewed. The annual increase of 8% alone has to be changed till the entire collection completed. Admittedly the Corporation laid the road by obtaining loan and the counter affidavit in the writ petition, the respondent has clearly stated about the loan availed and also the amount received and deposited; extra amount spent and the income towards rent.
48/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
34. Though the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants would submit that through RTI they got the information, in the counter affidavit filed in W.P.No.3514 of 2014, the first respondent has clearly given the pictures. Therefore, under these circumstances, this Court finds that the collection after the first period till 2014 is not illegal and this was done by the 2nd respondent and subsequently ratified in the year 2011 by the impugned order. Therefore, the judgment of the learned Single Judge needs interference. Therefore this Court is inclined to allow the writ appeals filed by the State and dismiss the writ appeals filed by the Association.
35. As far as the writ petition is concerned, admittedly, pending appeal, the second respondent admitted the excess amount of Rs.36 Crores collected as toll fee available in the ESCROW account and the Government had passed G.O.Ms.No.25 Municipal Administration and Water Supply(MC.
2)Department dated 05.02.2016. By considering the importance of implementing public project, the Government has granted permission to the Corporation to utilise the surplus amount of Rs.36 Crores for implementing the 49/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) underground drainage project since the financial position of the Corporation was very much deficit and unable to complete the underground drainage project during that point of time. Hence, the said Government Order dated 05.02.2016 is under challenge in W.P.(MD)No.3514 of 2021.
36. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner vehemently contended that as per the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred supra and any amount collected for the toll fee has to be utilized only for laying the road and constructing the bridge or maintenance of the road. He further contended that the funds collected through toll fee cannot be utilised for other than the above said purpose. Therefore the said Government Order dated 05.02.2016 is illegal in the eye of law.
37. The first respondent also admitted in the counter itself that there is excess collection of Rs.36 Crores. But the learned Additional Advocate General would submit that they are not having any record to show out of Rs.36 Crores what was the amount collected from the appellants Bus 50/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) Owners Association. Therefore, the writ Court cannot decide the disputed questions of fact in the writ petition, which require evidence.
38. In the result, i. The Writ Appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.1501 and 1502 of 2014 are dismissed. No Costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
ii. The Writ Appeals in W.A(MD)Nos.8 and 9 of 2015 are allowed. No Costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
iii. The impugned G.O.Ms.No.25, Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC.2) Department, dated 05.02.2016 is hereby quashed.
iv. However, the writ petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy regarding refund of the excess amount collected from them in the manner known to law by filing civil suit. In case, if any suit is filed in this regard, the period spent for this writ petition can be excluded for the purpose of 51/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) limitation. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition in Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2021 is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
[P.V.,J.] [K.K.R.K.,J.]
/03/2025
NCC : Yes/No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
PJL
52/54
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
Government of Tamilnadu,
Municipal Administration and Water Supply (MC II) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai- 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Madurai Corporation, Arignar Anna Maligai, Madurai- 626 002.
53/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm ) P.VELMURUGAN, J.
and K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN,J.
PJL Pre Delivery Judgment made in W.A(MD)Nos.1501 &1502 of 2014 and M.P(MD)Nos.1, 2 &1, 2 of 2014 and W.A(MD)Nos. 8 &9 of 2015 and M.P(MD)Nos.1& 1 of 2015 and W.P(MD)No.3514 of 2021 and C.M.P(MD)Nos.2930 of 2019, 1045 of 2021 & 2639 of 2021 and W.M.P(MD)Nos.2845 of 2021 /03/2025 54/54 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 08/04/2025 04:48:46 pm )