Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

17. The AT then proceeded to discuss the data submitted to it by NHAI as under:

"1) Monthly vehicle passing and AVCC compliance report of Samakhiyali Toll Plaza. (Ref: CD7, Page 1340 to 1352),
2) Month wise traffic data of Samakhiyali Toll Plaza for Nov. 2005 to Dec.

2009. (CD-I3, Pg. 1414)

3) Agency wise by toll collection from 01/06/2003 to 30/09/2006. (CD-13, Pg. 1410 to 1413"

18. The AT undertook a detailed analysis of the said data and concluded that it showed why the collection of BE may have been higher than that of JJP. The fifty-fold increase in the EME category of vehicles was indicative of a large scale industrial project further along the highway (such as development of a port or a Special Economic Zone). There was also a corresponding but less proportionate increase in other vehicle categories. However, since NHAI had adequate data in its possession, there was no occasion for it to take recourse to IRC-37 since the said guideline offered a 7.5% increase only where adequate data was not available.

45. The second aspect of the matter is that the revision of the above figure was triggered by the decoy agency reports as well as the collection figures of BE, which showed a much higher corresponding figure for the months of November and December, 2006. This was not an arbitrary figure because as is seen from the actual traffic data which was placed before the AT, there was a marked increase in the number of vehicles across categories i.e., car, jeep, van, LCV, Bus/Truck, HCM/EME vehicles. It was pointed out by Mr. Varma that if the actual figures were taken into consideration, the shortfall/pilferage just for LCV worked out to 32% and if that mode was adopted across all vehicles then the shortfall would be much higher. All that had been done was actually to limit it to 7.5% increase as per IRC-37. It was on that basis that the total likely collection for the period between December, 2004 and September, 2006 was worked out to be Rs. 34,27,52,085.