Karnataka High Court
Karavalli Bus Owners Association (R) vs Union Of India on 2 June, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 26.04.2025
Pronounced on : 02.06.2025 R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.9159 OF 2025 (GM - RES)
BETWEEN:
1. KARAVALI BUS OWNERS ASSOCIATION (R)
REGISTERED UNDER
KARNATAKA SOCIETIES ACT, 1960
DATED 19.10.2020, UDUPI-MANGALORE
SRI GANESH, LIONS MARG
BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI - 576 101
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT
SRI K.RAGHAVENDRA BHAT
S/O SUBRAMANYA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
PROP: BHARATHI MOTORS
LIONS MARG, BRAHMAGIRI
UDUPI - 576 104.
2. SMT. MANIMALLALA BALLAL
W/O K.RAJAVARMA BALLAL
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, NO.1-10-2
JAYARAJ HOLE BAIL, BIJAI
MANGALORE - 571 004
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
2
3. SRI K.ANANTHAKRISHNA BHAT
S/O SRINIVAS BHAT
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.1-33-R, SREE VISHNU HOUSE
MULLAGUDDE, PERDOOR POST
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 104
4. SRI SUBHASH RAI
S/O LATE K.B.JAGANNATH RAI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
NO.15-9-463/10, FLAT NO.104
NEAR SAMRUDIYA APARTMENT
GANESH GARDEN, KADRI
MANGALORE - 570 004
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
5. MR. SHABEER NAWAB SAB
S/O NAWAB SAB
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO.2111, DEVI NAGAR
K.H. B.COLONY, KUNJATH BAIL
MANGALORE - 575 101.
6. IMTIYAZ AHMED
S/O K.AHMED
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
NO.2-39(1), NEAR
NEW PICCO COMPANY
HULIYAR GOLI, UDUPI - 574 106.
7. MRS. CHANDRIKA
W/O M.S.VADIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
NO.6-40, SRI DEVI PRASAD
THOTTAM POST, VADABHANDESHWARA
MALPE, KODUR, UDUPI - 576 101.
3
8. SRI MOHAMMED ASHEER SAHEB
S/O SRI K.SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
NO.5/26, NEAR OLD POLICE STATION
MANUR VILLAGE AND POST, UDUPI
UDUPI DISTRICT - 571 104.
9. SRI MOHAMMED IMRAN
S/O SRI UMMAR SAHEB
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
THUHEED MANZIL, MULOOR
UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT - 576 104.
10 . SRI IDDINABERI SULAIMAN AHMED
S/O SULAIMAN AHMED
BUS OPERATOR
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
NO.4-112, BHASKAR NAGAR
BADAGRAMA, UCHILA POST
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
11 . SMT. KRISHNAKUMARI SHETTY
W/O VIJAYKUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
NO.3-63(1), MAHAGIRI
NEAR SANNABASAVANAKALLU
GILIYAR, KOTA, UDUPI TALUK AND
UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 104.
12 . SRI SATHISH
S/O KRISHNA SHERUGAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, H.NO.2/121
KOTE ROAD, KALYANPURA,
TO-NST-EAST, SANTHEKATTE
4
UDUPI - 576 104.
13 . SRI GANANATHA HEGDE
S/O K.JAYACHANDRA HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, NO.12-2-75
PREETHAM, S.P. OFFICE ROAD
BRAHMAGIRI, UDUPI - 576 101.
14 . SMT. SHASHI S.RAI
W/O SUBHASH RAI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
M/S. SUGAMA TOURIST
MYTHRI COMPLEX
SERVICE BUS STAND
UDUPI - 576 101.
15 . SRI HARISH RAI
S/O LATE K.B.JAGANNATH RAI
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, NO.3-W-32-2760/61
JAIL ROAD, KODIYAL BAIL
MANGALORE - 575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
16 . SRI K.JAYARAM SHETTY
S/O LATE K.GOPAL SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, NO.3-33-291
1/8, FLAT NO.202, 2ND FLOOR
MERCURY APARTMENT
VIJAY CHURCH CROSS
MANGALORE - 575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
17 . SRI NELSON PERIERA
S/O DOMNIC PERIERA
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
5
NO.302, SILVER SPRINGS
DOOR NO.17/7-433/11
BEYOND BELAVAI APARTMENT N.R.,
VALENTIA CIRCLE, FATHER MULLER ROAD
MANGALORE - 575 001
DAKSHINA KANNADA.
18 . SMT. SUJATHA V.SHETTY
W/O VASANTHA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR, NO.1-108
MAHALAKSHMI
OPP. DHARMAVARAM AUDITORIUM
VARAMBALLI, DHARMAVARA
UDUPI - 576 106.
19 . SRI KISHAN KUMAR HEGDE
S/O K.R.HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
NO.401, ZEN GARDEN, KITTUR
CHANNAMMA ROAD, AJJARKADU
UDUPI - 576 101.
20 . SMT. PRASADINI K.HEGDE
W/O SRI KISHAN KUMAR HEGDE
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
NO.401, ZEN GARDEN, KITTUR
CHANNAMMA ROAD, AJJARKADU
UDUPI - 576 101.
21 . SMT. PREMALATHA N.SHETTY
W/O SRI B.NARAYANA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
BUS OPERATOR
SRI VIJAYALAXMI NIVAS
KOTTARA CHOWKI, DEREBAIL
MANGALORE - 575 005
DAKSHINA KANNADA
6
22 . SRI SATHYARAJA SHETTY
S/O SHASHIDHARA SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
PROP: SUGAMA TOURIST
MYTHRI COMPLEX
NEAR SERVICE BUS STAND
UDUPI - 576 101.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PUTTIGE R.RAMESH, SR. ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI A.S.PARASARA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . UNION OF INDIA
BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS, NEW DELHI - 110 001.
2 . THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL, HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT
AND HIGHWAYS, GOVT. OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION
UNIT NO.3-29, BETHEL
THARE THOTA, NEAR PUMPWELL (NH-66)
MANGALORE - 575 002.
3 . M/S. UDUPI SASTHANA TOLLWAY PRIVATE
LTD., HEJAMADI AND SASTHANA TOLL PLAZA
HEJAMADI, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101.
THE COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER
COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER.
4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER AND
7
DISTRICT MAGISTRATE
NEAR A.B. SHETTY CIRCLE
OPP. TO NEHRU MAIDAN
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA - 575 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1;
SMT. SHILPA SHAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI C.K.NANDAKUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHURAM CADAMBI, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
SRI SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY THE R-2 IN NO.
11039/15/2025/PIU(MNGLR)/1332 DTD 1.02.2025 VIDE ANNX-L;
PROHIBIT THE R-3 NOT TO DEDUCT ANY ADDL TOLL CHARGES
AMOUNT FROM THE PETITIONERS FASTAG WALLET ACC OF THE
PETITIONERS AND COLLECT THE TOLL CHARGES ONLY AS PER THE
REGISTERED LADEN WEIGHT WHICH WEIGHTS BETWEEN 7,500 TO
12,000 KGS ONLY FROM FASTAGE WALLET ACCOUNTS OF
PETITIONERS VIDE ANNX-N, N1 TO N21.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 26.04.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
8
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The 1st petitioner/Karavali Bus Owners Association
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Association' for short) and other bus
operators of Mangalore and Udupi Districts are at the doors of this
Court calling in question an order dated 01-02-2025, by which the
representation of the Association comes to be rejected, confirming
debit adjustment charges made towards movement of buses of the
Association in the toll plazas. A consequential prohibition is sought
against the 3rd respondent not to deduct any additional toll charges
from FASTag wallet account of the petitioners.
2. Sans details, facts in brief, are as follows:-
The petitioners claim to be existing stage carriage permit
holders operating in Dakshina Kannada and Udupi Districts. The
grievance of the petitioners is that, the stage carriages operated by
them move through Hejamadi and Sastana toll plazas among
others. It is their allegation that, the fare that will be charged on
every trip of each vehicle should be taken into consideration on the
9
laden weight of the vehicles, which is between 7,500 and 12,000
Kgs. insofar as mini vehicles are concerned. The further allegation
is that the aforesaid two toll plazas deduct from the FASTag wallet
of the petitioners on the vehicles passing through FASTag ID which
is linked to the FASTag account, when it is scanned at the toll
plazas. However, notwithstanding the said fee paid to enter the toll
plaza, the 3rd respondent - Udupi Sasthana Tollway Private Limited
without notice to the petitioners has been deducting additional toll
charges from the FASTag wallet account of all the stage carriage
permit holders of the Association. The petitioners come to know of
the fact of 3rd respondent withdrawing additional toll charges in the
form of "charge back process" from FASTag wallet account as and
when it wishes to do so.
3. The Association then submits a representation on
21-07-2024 about its grievance to the 4th respondent - Deputy
Commissioner and District Magistrate, Udupi District, alleging that
there is an illegal activity of collecting excessive toll charges from
the account of the petitioners when scanning the FASTag ID and
sought to stop the illegal deductions. In response, the
10
representation comes to be rejected by the National Highways
Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as 'the NHAI' for short)
holding that in terms of the schedule appended to the concession
agreement, the debit adjustment followed as there is a mismatch
found. It is challenging the said communication along with the
continued action of collection of toll fee allegedly twice, the
petitioners are at the doors of this Court.
4. Heard Sri Puttige R.Ramesh, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners; Sri Aditya Singh, learned Central
Government Counsel appearing for respondent No.1, Smt. Shilpa
Shah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2,
Sri C.K.Nanda Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for
respondent No.3 and Sri Shamanth Naik, learned High Court
Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.4.
SUBMISSIONS:
PETITIONERS:
5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners
takes this Court through the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act' for
11
short) and places reliance upon several definition clauses to
contend that 'bus' no where in the Act is defined. Therefore, we
have to fallback upon the definition of 'vehicle' in the Act. The
transport authorities have classified vehicles on laden and unladen
weight. Vehicles which are about 12000 Kgs. are said to be busses
and which are below 12000 Kgs. are said to be minibuses. He
would contend that the vehicles of the petitioners have all gross
vehicle weight of less than 12000 Kgs. Therefore, those vehicles
cannot be categorized as buses. They are minibuses. According to
the concession agreement, minibus is 50% less than a bus.
Therefore, deduction in the toll plaza holding that there is a
mismatch between registration of vehicles and the capacity or what
is uploaded into the FASTag account, cannot be made. He would
further contend that the requirement under the FASTag is what is
projected by the vehicle owners is to be deducted. Taking cue from
the Act, he would contend that deductions under the National
Highways Act is impermissible. He would thus, seek a direction to
stop the dual demands made.
12
RESPONDENT NO.3 - THE CONCESSIONAIRE:
6. Per contra, the learned senior counsel Sri C.K.Nandakumar,
representing the 3rd respondent, is a concessionaire from the NHAI
under a concession agreement, which is now collecting toll charges
at the toll plazas would take this Court through certain provisions of
the NETC Interface Control Document (ICD) (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Manual' for short), which controls FASTag. Taking the
Court through the said Manual, he would justify toll deductions.
According to him, the Violation Matching under Clause 4.3, Violation
Audit by Toll Plaza under Clause 4.6 and dispute handling that is
permitted, all of which form a part of the concession agreement. It
is his submission that every concessionaire should get into an
agreement with the NHAI as a separate agreement and toll charge
is deducted in terms of those agreements. He would take this
Court through the registration certificate of one of the vehicles
owned by the petitioners. The vehicle is registered as a bus and
seating capacity is shown as 38. The same owner uploads the
documents on the FASTag. The owner of the vehicle describes it as
a minibus and reduces the seating capacity to 32. When the vehicle
13
pass through the toll plaza, the FASTag immediately deducts what
is found in the FASTag document. Later, when it is noticed that
there is a mismatch, further deduction is made. He would submit
that there can be no qualm about the deductions made. He would
submit that the entire fee collection is dealt with under separate
Rules and drawing of Motor Vehicles Act is neither here nor there.
He would therefore, seek dismissal of the petition.
RESPONDENT NO.1 - UNION OF INDIA;
RESPONDENT NO.2 - NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF
INDIA & RESPONDENT NO.4 - THE STATE GOVERNMENT:
7. Learned counsel representing the respondents 1, 2 and 4
would also toe the lines of the learned senior counsel representing
the 3rd respondent, contending that the statute operates for
collection of fee, which is entirely different from the one that is
projected by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners. They
would contend that no fault can be found with the action of the 3rd
respondent. They would all, in unison, seek dismissal of the
petition.
14
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9. The facts, as outlined, are not in dispute. The existence of
deductions is not denied. The singular issue that beckons
adjudication is, whether the concessionaire is legally
empowered to effectuate, a second toll charge, post facto on
the premise of data mismatch?
10. The consideration of the aforesaid issue, necessitates an
exploration of the governing statutory scheme - Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 ('MV Act' for short); National Highways Act, 1956
('the Act' for short); the Rules framed thereunder, the
National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008 ( 'the Rules' for short). It is apropos
to notice certain provisions of the afore-quoted statutes.
15
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988:
11. Section 2 of the Act deals with definitions. Certain
definitions are germane to be noticed. Section 2(15) of the Act
deals with 'gross vehicle weight'; Section 2(17) deals with 'heavy
passenger vehicle'; Section 2(21) deals with 'light motor vehicle';
Section 2(24) deals with 'medium passenger motor vehicle'; Section
2(35) deals with 'public service vehicle'. Section 2(40) deals with
'stage carriage'; Section 2(47) deals with 'transport vehicle' and
Section 2(48) deals with 'unladen weight'. All the above definitions
read as follows:
"2(15) "gross vehicle weight" means in respect of any
vehicle the total weight of the vehicle and load certified and
registered by the registering authority as permissible for that
vehicle;
.... .... ....
2(17) "heavy passenger motor vehicle" means
any public service vehicle or private service vehicle or
educational institution bus or omnibus the gross vehicle
weight of any of which, or a motor car the unladen
weight of which, exceeds 12,000 kilograms;
.... .... ....
2(21) "light motor vehicle" means a transport
vehicle or omnibus the gross vehicle weight of either of
which or a motor car or tractor or road-roller the
unladen weight of any of which, does not exceed
7500 kilograms;
.... .... ....
2(24) "medium passenger motor vehicle" means
any public service vehicle or private service vehicle, or
educational institution bus other than a motor
16
cycle, adapted vehicle, light motor vehicle or heavy
passenger motor vehicle;
2(35) "public service vehicle" means any motor vehicle
used or adapted to be used for the carriage of passengers for
hire or reward, and includes a maxi-cab, a motor-cab, contract
carriage, and stage carriage;
.... .... ....
2(40) "stage carriage" means a motor vehicle
constructed or adapted to carry more than six
passengers excluding the driver for hire or reward at
separate fares paid by or for individual passengers,
either for the whole journey or for stages of the
journey;
.... .... ....
2(47) "transport vehicle" means a public service vehicle,
a goods carriage, an educational institution bus or a private
service vehicle;
2(48) "unladen weight" means the weight of a
vehicle or trailer including all equipment ordinarily used
with the vehicle or trailer when working, but excluding
the weight of a driver or attendant; and where
alternative parts or bodies are used the unladen weight
of the vehicle means the weight of the vehicle with the
heaviest such alternative part or body;"
(Emphasis supplied)
A stage carriage as defined under Sub-section (40) of Section 2 of
the Act would mean a motor vehicle constructed or adapted to carry
more than six passengers inter alia the driver. A heavy passenger
motor vehicle as defined under Section 2(17) of the Act would
mean a public or a private service vehicle or a motor car of which
the unladen weight exceeds 12000 Kgs. The light motor vehicle as
17
defined under Section 2(21) of the Act could be a omnibus
transport vehicle whose unladen weight does not exceed 7500 Kgs.
Therefore, upto 7500 Kgs. is a light motor vehicle and beyond
12000 Kgs. is a heavy passenger motor vehicle. What happens
between 7500 and 12000 Kgs. is in the vacuum. The gross vehicle
weight as defined under Section 2(15) of the Act means weight in
respect of a vehicle and load certified and registered by the
registering authority as permissible. The medium passenger motor
vehicle as defined under Section 2(24) of the Act would be a light
motor vehicle, private or public. What is discernible from the afore-
quoted definitions is that, gross vehicle weight is what is found in
the certified and registered document of the registering authority.
Light and heavy motor vehicles are narrated hereinabove. The
medium passenger motor vehicle though defined, the weight of it is
left undefined. Transport vehicle is defined under Section 2(47) of
the Act, which would mean a public service vehicle or a private
service vehicle as the case would be. The issue in the lis though
does not lead to interpretation of the afore-quoted provisions, they
become necessary to be noticed and considered and are, therefore,
afore-extracted.
18
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS ACT, 1956:
12. The Act enables the Central Government to develop and
maintain National Highways and enter into concession agreements
for toll collection. Section 8A of the Act deals with power to enter
into concession agreements. It reads as follows:
"8-A. Power of Central Government to enter into
agreements for development and maintenance of
national highways.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained
in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an
agreement with any person in relation to the development and
maintenance of the whole or any part of a national highway.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section
7, the person referred to in sub-section (1) is entitled to
collect and retain fees at such rate, for services or
benefits rendered by him as the Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify
having regard to the expenditure involved in building,
maintenance, management and operation of the whole
or part of such national highway, interest on the capital
invested, reasonable return, the volume of traffic and
the period of such agreement.
(3) A person referred to in sub-section (1) shall
have powers to regulate and control the traffic in
accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter
VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the
national highway forming subject-matter of such
agreement, for proper management thereof."
(Emphasis supplied)
19
Section 8A empowers the Central Government to enter into
agreements for development and maintenance of national
highways. In furtherance of the development of the national
highways and in terms of Section 8A, the National Highway
Authorities have entered into concession agreement with the 3rd
respondent, who in terms of the agreement is empowered to deduct
fee for maintenance of roads. Section 9 of the Act empowers the
Government of India to frame Rules. Section 9 reads as follows:
"9. Power to make rules.--(1) The Central Government
may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make rules for
carrying out the purposes of this Act.
(2) In particular and without prejudice to the generality of
the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the
following matters, namely:--
(a) the manner in which, and the conditions
subject to which, any function in relation to
the development or maintenance of a national
highway or any part thereof may be exercised
by the State Government or any officer or
authority subordinate to the Central
Government or the State Government;
(aa) the manner in which the amount shall be
deposited with the competent authority under
sub-sections (1) and (6) of Section 3-H;
20
(b) the rates at which fees for services rendered
in relation to the use of ferries, permanent
bridges, temporary bridges and tunnels on
any national highway 11[and the use of
sections of any national highway] may be
levied, and the manner in which such fees
shall be collected, under Section 7;
(c) the periodical inspection of national highways and
the submission of inspection reports to the Central
Government;
(d) the reports on works carried out on national
highways;
(e) any other matter for which provision should be
made under this Act.
(3) Every rule made under this section shall be laid, as
soon as may be after it is made, before each House of
Parliament, while it is in session, for a total period of thirty days
which may be comprised in one session or in two or more
successive sessions and if, before the expiry of the session
immediately following the session or the successive sessions
aforesaid, both Houses agree in making any modification in the
rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the
rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be
of no effect, as the case may be; so, however, that any such
modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the
validity of anything previously done under that rule."
(Emphasis supplied)
Invoking power under Section 9 of the Act, the Government of India
has framed Rules for the purpose of collection of toll.
21
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS FEE (DETERMINATION OF RATES AND
COLLECTION) RULES, 2008:
13. The preamble and certain provisions are germane to be
noticed. They read as follows:
"In exercise of the powers conferred by section 9 of
the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of 1956) and in
supersession of the National Highways (Temporary
Bridges) Rules, 1964, the National Highways
(Collection of Fees by any person for the Use of
Section of National Highways/Permanent
Bridge/Temporary Bridge on National Highways)
Rules, 1997, the National Highways (Fees for the Use
of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge-
Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997 and the National
Highways (Rate of Fees) Rules, 1997, except as respects
things done or omitted to be done before such supersession,
the Central Government hereby makes the following rules for
collection of fee for use of sections of national highways,
permanent bridges, by-passes and tunnels, namely:-"
(Emphasis supplied)
Rule 2 deals with definitions. Rule 2(d) defines who is a
'concessionaire'. It reads as follows:
"Concessionaire" means a person with whom an
agreement has been entered into under section 8-A of
the Act;
(Emphasis supplied)
22
Rule 2(ga) deals with 'fee plaza'. It reads as follows:
"fee plaza" means any building, structure or
booth made for collection of fee;
(Emphasis supplied)
Rule 2(ha), (hb), (hc) and (hd) deals with FASTag. It reads as
follows:
"(ha) "FASTag" means an onboard unit
(transponder) or any such device fitted on the front
wind screen of the vehicles; and
(hb) "FASTag lane of toll plaza" is an exclusive
lane in the toll plaza for movement of vehicles fitted
with "FASTag" or any such device.
(hc) "Pre-paid payment instrument" means the
instrument as defined by the Reserve Bank of India;
(hd) "Electronic Toll Collection Infrastructure" means
set of equipment comprising of hardware and software which
shall facilitate electronic collection of user fees;
(Emphasis supplied)
Rule 2(i) deals with 'gross vehicle weight' and reads as follows:
"gross vehicle weight" in respect of any vehicle
means the total weight of the vehicle and load
certified and registered by the registering authority as
permissible for that vehicle under the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988.
(Emphasis supplied)
23
A notification is issued amending certain provisions on 09.09.2024.
The amendment is to the following provisions:
"G.S.R. 556(E). - In exercise of the powers conferred
by section 9 of the National Highways Act, 1956 (48 of
1956), the Central Government hereby makes the following
rules further to amend the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008,
namely: -
1.- (1) These rules may be called the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2024.
(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in
the Official Gazette.
2. In the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the said
rules), in sub-rule (1) of rule 2,-
(i) in clause (da) after the words "highway or
expressway", the following shall be inserted,
namely:-
"and collected through Global Navigation Satellite
System On-Board Unit or any such device or
Automatic Number Plate Recognition Device or
FASTag or any combination thereof";
(ii) in clause (hd), after the words "user fees", the following
shall be inserted, namely:-
"through Global Navigation Satellite System On-Board Unit
or Automatic Number Plate Recognition Device or FASTag
or any combination thereof";
(iii) after clause (hd), the following clause shall be inserted,
namely:-
"(he) "Global Navigation Satellite System On-Board Unit"
means a non-transferable and firmly fitted device in a
vehicle linked to Global Navigation Satellite System based
user fee collection;';
24
3. In rule 6 of the said rules, in sub-rule (3), after the second
proviso, the following proviso shall be inserted, namely:-
"Provided also that exclusive lane can be earmarked for
Global Navigation Satellite System On-Board Unit fitted
vehicle and in case vehicle enters such lane, without a valid,
functional Global Navigation Satellite System On-Board Unit,
shall pay a fee equivalent to two times of the user fee
applicable at that fee plaza:".
4. In rule 9 of the said rules, after sub-rule (4), the following
sub-rule shall be inserted, namely:-
"(5) A driver, owner or person in-charge of a
mechanical vehicle other than National Permit vehicle
who makes use of the same section of national
highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the
case may be, shall be levied a zero-user fee upto
twenty kilometers of joumey in each direction in a
day under Global Navigation Satellite System based
user fee collection system and if the distance
travelled is more than twenty kilometers, then fee
will be charged for actual distance travelled.".
[F. No. 5016/01/2023-Toll]
SUMAN PRASAD SINGH, Jt. Secy."
The notification amends the fee collection methodology, even to
bring global navigation satellite system for automatic number plate
recognition. As observed hereinabove Rule 2(d) deals with
concessionaire. The Government of India in the Ministry of Surface
Transport has entered into a concession agreement with the
concessionaire. The concession agreement has a schedule to it,
which is Schedule-R. Schedule-R is the same as schedule to the
25
aforesaid Rules. In Schedule-R, base rate of fee is found. The base
rate of fee under Clause-4, of the Rules reads as follows:
"4. Base rate of fee. - (1) The rate of fee for use of the
section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or
tunnel constructed through public funded project or private
investment project shall be identical.
(2) The rate of fee for use of a section of national highway of
four or more lanes shall, for the base year 2007-08, be the
product of the length of such section multiplied by the
following rates, namely:-
Type of Vehicle Base rate of fee per km
(in rupees)
Car, Jeep, Van or Light 0.65
Motor Vehicle
Light Commercial 1.05
Vehicle, Light Goods
Vehicle or Mini Bus
Bus or Truck 2.20
Heavy Construction 3.45
Machinery (HCM) or Earth
Moving Equipment (EME) or
Multi Axle Vehicle (MAV)
(three to six axles)
Oversized Vehicles (seven 4.20
or more axles)
Explanation.- For the purposes of this rule,-
(a) "car" or "jeep" or "van" or "light motor vehicle"
means any mechanical vehicle the gross vehicle weight of
which does not exceed seven thousand five hundred
kilograms or the registered passenger carrying capability
as specified in the certificate of registration issued under
the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not exceed twelve
excluding the driver;
26
(b) "light commercial vehicle" or "light goods
vehicle" or "mini bus" means any mechanical
vehicle with a gross vehicle weight exceeding seven
thousand five hundred kilograms but less than
twelve thousand kilograms or the registered
passenger carrying capability as specified in the
certificate of registration issued under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, exceeds twelve but does not
exceed thirty two excluding the driver,
(c) "truck" or "bus" means any mechanical vehicle
with a gross vehicle weight exceeding twelve
thousand kilograms but less than twenty thousand
kilograms or the registered passenger carrying
capability as specified in the certificate of
registration issued under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988, exceeds thirty two, excluding the driver;
(d) "heavy construction machinery" or "earth
moving equipment" or "multi axle vehicle" means
heavy construction machinery or earth moving equipment
or mechanical vehicle including a multi axle vehicle with
three to six axles or vehicle with a gross vehicle weight
exceeding twenty thousand kilograms but less than sixty
thousand kilogram; and
(e) "oversized vehicle" means any mechanical vehicle
having seven or more axles or vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight exceeding sixty thousand kilograms."
(Emphasis supplied)
For a light commercial vehicle, the base rate is Rs.1.05 per
km. and it is double for a bus or truck, which is at Rs.2.20
per km. The entire fulcrum of the lis lies in this.
27
14. The vehicles of the petitioners are registered by the
registering authority. As an illustration, description of one of the
vehicles owned by the petitioners, is as follows:
Here the classification is a bus. The seating capacity is 38. But, the
unladen weight is 7300 Kgs. Another vehicle's description is as
follows:
28
This is also a bus, which weighs 11100 Kgs. and the seating
capacity is 38. What the members of the Association, would do is
upload the document on FASTag depicting, the vehicle to be a
minibus. The vehicle summary of one of the vehicles quoted
hereinabove is as follows:
"Tag Account No. 34123978
Licence Plate No. KA20AB9797
Vehicle Type Mini Bus
Status Active
Black listed False
Trip Code 228"
(Emphasis boxed)
29
The vehicle description is minibus and the registration number is
the same as indicated hereinabove. Therefore, the details of the
vehicle is uploaded by the owner, and the details of the vehicle are
drawn by the system from the Transport Department. Now, there
is undoubtedly a mismatch as the vehicle described by the
registering authority, as it is a bus and its seating capacity is 38.
The owner of the vehicle while uploading the details of the vehicle,
describes it as a minibus. If it is a minibus, it would become a
light motor vehicle and the fee would be Rs.1.05 per km. If it
is a bus, the fee would be Rs.2.20 per km. Therefore, the
difference is more than double. In this discrepancy, what the
concessionaire would do, or permitted to do, is found in the Manual.
Clauses 4.3 to 4.6 of the Manual read as follows:
"4.3 Violation Matching:
• The toll plaza system receives Mapper Vehicle Class
(MVC) in the response pay message and AVC input will
be obtained from NETC lane.
• Any transaction where Mapper Vehicle Class is not
equal to the Automated Vehicle Class (AVC) then such
transactions are referred as violation transactions.
• The toll plaza auditor should validate the vehicle image
and AVC profile for the violation transactions.
30
• If the violation is proved to be a valid violation
after the audit then, the toll plaza can raise debit
or credit adjustment with the Acquiring Bank. As
per the process defined in violation audit
section.
4.4 Blacklist Management (BL):
Online APIs are defined in the document to pull the
consolidated and incremental blacklist from the Acquiring
Host.
Incremental blacklist data should be used for updating the
toll plaza system and the consolidated blacklist should only
be used to match/ audit the net blacklist data in the toll
plaza system.
4.5 Log Standardization
Logs for all the operations performed at toll plaza must be
stored. These logs should be provided for audit and dispute
purpose. The plaza should maintain these logs for 3 years
and should be retrieve easily for future reference or dispute.
The sample format of log is attached for reference. The plaza
and acquirer bank can use format or any other standard
format applicable for their respective system.
4.6 Violation Audit by Toll Plaza
1. The Concessionaire system should raise the violation
through violation API only after verifying Mapper class
received Response Pay Message API with the AVC class for
the said transactions. If they observe any discrepancy in
MVC Vs AVC then only violation should be raised.
2. Toll plaza operator should upload minimum 2 and
maximum 5 images of vehicle for violation processing. This
should be automated process, whenever they are raising
violation images of those transactions should be stored on
SFTP. The size of the image should not be more that 2 MB.
31
3. The Acquirer Bank should provide the acknowledgment for
all the successful images received to the toll plaza on SFTP.
The acquirer bank and plaza should use the existing logic of
ACK/NACK of toll file for images as well.
4. Reference to the point number 4.2 File transfer of ICD 2.4
CCH document, as per the existing process the Acquirer
banks should create additional new folder in the name of
'Image Ack Status' under the respective Concessionaire
Outbound folder in the SFTP for sharing the status of Image
acknowledgment for accepted or decline violation
transactions."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Manual further permits the concessionaire of dispute handling.
The dispute handling as obtaining in Clause 17 of the Manual reads
as follows:
"17 Dispute Handling
17.1 Dispute Cycle Definitions
The various disputes supported by Acquirer bank are
defined as follows:
17.2 Credit adjustment:
Credit adjustment would be raised for reversing the
excess funds received to the tag holder. It can be
raised on settled transactions only.
17.3 Debit adjustment:
Debit adjustment would be raised for violation
cases along with the valid proofs/ evidences for
32
receiving the difference amount from tag holder.
It can be raised on settled transactions only.
17.4 Chargeback:
It is a message through which the issuer/tag
holder demands a full or partial reversal of an
amount earlier charged on NETC transactions. A
chargeback is always accompanied by a reason
and evidences due to which it is being
demanded.
17.5 Chargeback acceptance / Chargeback deemed
acceptance:
It is notification message generated by the acquirer/
toll plaza operator to indicate an acceptance of the
chargeback raised by the issuer/tag holder.
17.6 Credit Chargeback:
It is a message generated by issuer/ tag holder to
raise a reversal (partial or full) of the NETC transaction
to acquirer/ toll plaza operator.
17.7 Credit chargeback acceptance / Credit chargeback
deemed acceptance:
It is notification message generated by the acquirer/
toll plaza operator to indicate an acceptance of the
chargeback raised by the issuer/tag holder.
17.8 Re-Presentment:
It is a message by which the acquirer bank/ toll plaza
operator rejects the chargeback claimed by issuer/ tag
holder with valid proof/ evidences.
33
17.9 Re-Presentment acceptance / Re presentment deemed
acceptance:
It is a message initiated by the issuer in consent with
tag holder to indicate acceptance of the re-
presentment message transmitted by the acquirer/ toll
plaza operator.
17.10 Good Faith:
The good faith message would be generated by either
of the party i.e. Issuer/ tag holder or by Acquirer
bank/ toll plaza operator for the transactions where
dispute TAT is expired. It is the last cycle of dispute
handling where the dispute is settled with mutual
consent from both the parties.
17.11Good faith acceptance:
This message is generated by a receiving party to
indicate its acceptance of a good faith case raised by
initiating party. Good faith acceptance can be
full/partial.
17.12 Good faith declined/ Good Faith deemed declined:
This message is generated by a receiving party to
indicate that it rejects the good faith case concerning
it raised by initiating party."
(Emphasis supplied)
The Start to Stop of chargeback flow chart as obtaining under
Clause 17.13 of the Manual, is as follows:
34
The dispute reason codes under Clause 18 of the Manual, reads as
follows:
35
"18 Dispute Reason Codes
Dispute can be raised by the Toll plaza operator
based on the following reason defined by NPCI.
18.1 Debit Adjustment
Reason Code Description
1001 Toll fare calculation error
1002 Vehicle class mismatch
1003 Unregistered Tag in the mapper
1004 Vehicle is not in exempted list
1005 Vehicle is not in black list
1006 Vehicle is not in low balance list
1007 Other Specify
18.2 Credit Adjustment
Reason Code Description
2001 Toll fare calculation error
2002 duplicate transaction done at Toll
Plaza
2003 Tag holder was charged for
unsuccessful transaction
2005 Paid by other means
2006 Vehicle is in exempted list
2007 Other Specify"
(Emphasis boxed)
Clauses 4.3 and 4.6 supra permit the toll plaza system to notice
violation matching and enter into violation auditing. Under Clause
17, which deals with dispute handling, the concessionaire is
empowered to credit adjust, debit adjust and charge back. The
36
debit adjustment can be for several reasons. One of the reasons is,
vehicle class mismatch. Same goes with the charge back.
15. What is discernible from the afore-quoted clauses is that
the concessionaire is entitled to do a debit adjustment in case of a
vehicle mismatch. In the case at hand, the vehicle mismatch has
arisen on the variation with the registration certificate issued by the
Regional Transport Authority which is found in the records of the
Department and what is uploaded on to the FASHag. The
registration shows the vehicle of the members of the petitioner as a
bus and what is uploaded on to the FASHag is a mini bus. This is
ostensibly taking cue from the vacuum that is in the Motor Vehicles
Act where heavy motor vehicle and light motor vehicle qua their
laden weight is defined. The definition 'bus' is nowhere found. The
vehicles of the petitioners do weigh 12000 kgs. If it is less than
12000 kgs., in terms of the Act it can be neither described as a light
motor vehicle nor a heavy motor vehicle. In the light of the
statutory vacuum as to what happens to vehicles weighing 7500
kgs. to 12000 kgs. it appears, the Association seeks clarification
from the hands of the Transport Authority. The Transport Authority
37
clarifies in the following manner. The Transport Department clarified
it on 10-02-2025. It reads as follows:
" ಂ ಬರ ಹ
ಷಯ: ಾಹನದ ವಗ ಕು ತು ಸ ಕರಣ ಕು ತು.
ಉ ೇಖ: !ೕ."ಾಘ ೇಂದ! ಭ%, ಅಧ()ರು, ಕ"ಾವ* ಬ+ ,ಾ-ೕಕರ ಸಂಘ,
ಉಡು/ gÀªÀgÀ Cfð ¢£ÁAPÀ: 10.02.2025
****
0ೕ-ನ ಉ ೇಖದ-ಯ ಷಯ1ೆ2 ಸಂಬಂ34ದಂ5ೆ, 6ೕ7ಾರು ಾಹನಗಳ 1ಾ9:
1988 ರ ಪ!1ಾರ ಈ 1ೆಳ=ನಂ5ೆ ಾಹನದ ತೂಕವನು? ಆಧ 4 ಪ!AಾBಕರ ಾಹನಗಳ
ವಗ ವನು? CಗDಪEಸ ಾ=ರುತFGೆ.
ಕ!.ಸಂ
ಕ! ಸಂ.
ಸಂ ಾಹನದ ತೂಕ (H
H ೋ Iಾ!ಂ)
Iಾ!ಂ - PÉf ಾಹನದ ವಗ
1 7500 ರವ"ೆIೆ LPV
2 7501 jAzÀ 12000 gÀªÀgÉUÉ MPV
3 12001 ನಂತರದ ಾಹನಗ*Iೆ HPV
4 AಾವJGೇ RLW ಇದ:ರೂ Stage Carriage ಾಹನಗ*Iೆ BUS ಎಂದು
ನಮೂGಾ=ರುತFGೆ.
Gೆ
Gೆ
¸À»/-
Oಾ!Gೇ ಕ Pಾ Iೆ ಅ31ಾ ,
ಉಡು/ Q ೆ ಉಡು/."
(Emphasis added)
The description of vehicle from 7501 to 12000 Kgs. is said to be a
medium passenger vehicle and whichever vehicle of laden weight as
aforesaid, is described as a bus. This endorsement has generated
certain obfuscation. The obfuscation is owing to the provisions of
38
the Act. Fee collection is not dealt with under the Act. It is dealt
with under the aforesaid Rules framed under the Highways Act.
Schedule-R therein to the Rules is the same, which is found in the
Manual / concession agreement quoted hereinabove. Schedule-R
clearly defines the collection to the passenger capacity. If the
submission of the learned senior counsel is to be accepted, it would
lead to huge losses to any person for the reason that the
Association is wanting to take advantage of the vacuum under the
Act. Notwithstanding the registration of the vehicles as buses, the
vehicle owners describe their vehicles as minibuses and, for
illustrations when they were to pay ₹1,000/- as toll fee, they will
pay ₹500/-, notwithstanding the description, of it as a bus.
Therefore, we have to fallback upon the Highways Act and the
Rules, and the agreement between NHAI and the concessionaire.
16. The dispute mismatch is noticed and therefore, the fee in
terms of registration certificate is collected. It is not the submission
of the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that fee beyond the
fee prescribed for a bus is collected. It is his submission that these
vehicles though registered as buses, they cannot be treated as
39
buses at all, for the collection of toll fee. The said submission is
unacceptable. This was a representation made by the petitioners to
the third respondent on 01.02.2025, in the form of an appeal, to
get chargeback process stopped. The representation of the
Association reads as follows:-
"Date 01-02-2025
To,
M/s Udupi Tollway Private Limited
Hejamadi Toll Plaza
Hejamadi, Udupi Dist
Udupi, Karnataka
Subject: Protest at Sasthana and Hejamdy toll plaza
against illegal withdrawal of money from FASTag
wallet account without notice.
I would like to bring to your kind attention about the illegal
activity of withdrawing the money from the FASTag wallet
account without notice.
According to the norms, a FASTag account is created
for all buses. When the bus passes the toll plaza,
according to BHARATH KA RAJPATRA, THE GAZETTE OF
INDIA, the money will be withdrawn from the FASTag
wallet account after scanning the FASTag ID at toll
plaza, which is accepted.
There is difference in the criterion sub-clauses
4.(2).(b) and 4.(2).(c) of the schedule-R-Fee
Notification of the Concession Agreement of NHAI and
the criteria for categorizing the vehicle for issuance of
FASTags mentioned under "FASTAG ISSUANCE,
VEHICLE CLASSIFICATION DOCUMENT", which is
40
leading to the aggravation by the Karavali Bus Owners
Association®.
In order to compensate this, continuously money is
withdrawn from the account while the bus is not at toll
plaza or without scanning the FASTag ID. This
continued till the account balance shows negative.
After repetitive requests and complaints regarding the same
matter, against the Hejamadi and Sasthana Toll Plaza
manager, your highness (the project director) has referred
the above matter to the competent Authority of NHAI. The
matter is still under examination. But on 29th January 2025,
without any order from NHAI, your highness has given the
instructions to the Sasthana and Hejamadi Toll plaza to start
deducting the money from the wallet as "CHARGE BACK
PROCESS", which is illegal and against the low and justice.
The deduction has started from wallet as additional charges
(chargeback) without any direction from the Competent
Authority.
To protest this unlawful activity at toll plaza, all bus owners,
drivers and conductors have decided to conduct a silent
strike at Hejamadi and Sasthana toll plaza on 5th February
2025.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward
for your favorable response by stopping this cheating activity
and take appropriate action against the manager at
Hajamadi and Sasthana Toll Plaza and grant justice.
Thanks and regards:
Raghavendra Bhat
President
Karavali Bus Owners Association
Udupi/Mangalore.
Jithendra Jain
Secretary
Dilraj Alva
41
Honorary President."
(Emphasis added)
This comes to be rejected by an endorsement dated 01-02-2025,
which reads as follows:
"To,
The President
Karavali Bus Owners Association
Udupi/Mangalore
Lions Marga, Bhramagiri,
Udupi - 576101
Sub: Four laning of Kundapur - Surathkal Section (Km
283.300 to km 358.080) (Section-1) Mangalore to Kerala
Border (i.e. Nantoor Circle to Mahaveer Circle) to Kerala
Border (km 3.7 to km 17.200) (Section-2) Of NH-66 (Old
NH-17) in the State of Karnataka on DBFOT Basis under
NHDP-III (Package No. KAR/Phase-III/IC/2010) - Collection
of User Fee based on the Classification of "Light
commercial Vehicle" or "Light Goods vehicle" Or "Mini
Bus" - Reg.
Ref: Karavali Bus Owners Association (R) Letter no. NIL
dated 21.07.2024
Sir,
This has reference to the above letter dated
21.07.2024 wherein it was requested to stop the deduction
of additional charges through FASTag at Hejamadi and
Sasthan Toll Plazas.
The project from Kundapur-Surathkal was taken up on
PPP (DBFOT mode) and the Concession Agreement for the
42
above project was executed on 09.03.2010. And the Fee
Notification as per the existing Fee Rules at the time of
executing forms a part of the Concession Agreement.
The sub-clauses 4. (2). (b) and 4. (2). (c) of the
'Schedule-R - Fee Notification' of the Concession Agreement
& User Fee Gazette notification S.O.623(E) dated 12.03.2013
states the following:
(b) "light commercial vehicle or "light goods vehicle" or
"minibus" means any mechanical vehicle with a gross vehicle
weight exceeding seven thousand five hundred kilograms but
less than twelve thousand kilograms or registered passenger
carrying capability as specified in the certificate of registration
issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exceeds twelve but
does not exceed thirty-two excluding the driver...
(c) "truck" or "bus" means any mechanical vehicle with a
gross vehicle weight exceeding twelve thousand kilograms but
less than twenty thousand kilograms or registered passenger
carrying capability as specified in the certificate of registration
issued under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, exceeds thirty-two
excluding the driver...
In view of the above, largely there are two parameters based
on which the Registration Certificate is being issued to the
respective class of vehicles. The first parameter is the Gross
Vehicle Weight and the second parameter is the seating
capacity based on the goods vehicle or the passenger
vehicle.
Although the Gross Vehicle Weight of the vehicle
is less than twelve thousand kilograms, the RTO has
been issuing the Registration Certificates to the
vehicles by tagging them as "Bus"; considering the
seating capacity rather than the gross vehicle weight
since it has a passenger carrying capability of more
than thirty-two excluding the driver based on the
stipulations made in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Accordingly, any passenger carrying vehicle that has a
seat capacity above thirty-two seats excluding driver
tagged as "Bus" by RTO shall be charged under the
"Bus or Truck" category defined in the 'Schedule-R -
Fee Notification' of the Concession Agreement and the
43
Concessionaire raised the debit adjustment if any
mismatch is found.
However, the FASTags are issued by the various
FASTag issuance agencies based on the Gross Vehicle
Weight (GVW), however the Concessionaire is
following the chargeback mechanism based on the
number of passengers, as per the provisions of
Schedule-R of the Concession Agreement,
In view of the above, the Concessionaire has
followed the provisions of the Concession Agreement
in line with the User Fee Gazette notification
S.O.623(E) dated 12.03.2013 is collecting the user fee
based on the passenger capacity.
This is for your information please.
Yours faithfully,
Sd/-
(Abdulla Javed Azmi)
DGM(T) & Project Director,
NHAI, PIU-Mangalore."
(Emphasis added)
What is narrated hereinabove is, what is answered to the
petitioners. The concessionaires rejection of the representation
made by the petitioners on 01-02-2025 is thus found to be lawful,
justifiable and within the four corners of the governing legal frame
work. The debit adjustment or the charge back mechanism has
been rightly invoked in view of the discrepancies between
registration data and the uploaded FASTag information.
44
17. What is discernible from the preceding analysis is,
while the Motor Vehicles Act defines classes of vehicles for
regulatory purposes, toll classification is governed solely by
the National Highways Act, the Fee Rules and the
Concessionaire agreement. The legal foundation for toll
adjustments due to vehicle mismatch is both statutory and
contractual, making the petitioners' grievance legally
untenable. Thus, finding the petition devoid of merit, it would
necessarily meet its dismissal.
18. Before parting with the order, it would be
appropriate to observe that the legislative framework
especially the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 calls for a re-
examination qua description of vehicles. The Union Ministry
of Surface Transport, the 1st respondent, would do well to
undertake a review and insert appropriate clarificatory
definitions, to address the evolving complexities of vehicular
classifications and toll collection. The present dispute, while
resolved within the existing legal rubric, reveals the need for
statutory refinement.
45
19. In the light of the preceding analysis, the following:
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
(ii) The 1st respondent shall endeavour to redefine the classes of vehicles in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order, failing which, it would result in mushrooming of such submissions being projected.
(ii) Copy of this order shall be furnished to the Additional Solicitor General of India.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj CT:SS