Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. However, it is to be noted that the Division Bench has delivered the judgment considering an unamended provision of Section 20 of the Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958. Section 20 came to be amended from time to time. One of such amendment was by Amendment Act 15/1987. The object and reasons of the said Act provided that the State considered it expedient to amend Section 20 of the Act so as to suitably empower the State Government to levy toll from time to time, to the extent of total capital outlay of any bridge, tunnel or approach road thereto or section of new road or by-pass etc. It was also felt expedient to define the expression "Capital Outlay" appropriately so that it would enable the State Government to recover not only the costs of construction of bridge or tunnel or approach roads thereto but also cost of section of new road or by-pass which is constructed, reconstructed, improved or repaired and shall include the anticipated costs of certain essential on-goings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening, structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and also interest on the capital outlay. By the said amendment, it was also provided to empower the State Government to collect toll either by itself or through its authorized agents.

It would clearly be seen that in the original Act which is of 1958, it was impermissible for the State Government to levy toll on vehicles. However, by an Amendment in 1969, a provision was made so as to permit State Government to levy toll for recovery of the amount spent on the construction of any bridge including any approach road. In 1974, in addition to bridges, power was also given to levy toll in respect of tunnels. However, this power was restricted only in case where the capital costs incurred was not less than Rs.10 Lakhs. Since the provisions which existed then and which came to be interpreted by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bungalow Plot Owners Association, did not permit the levy of toll for an amount more than the capital costs of such construction, reconstruction or repairs of the bridge or tunnel and since the contention of the State Government that it was also permissible for it to levy toll so as to recover anticipated costs of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening structural repairs, maintenance and also interest on such outlay was specifically rejected by this Court, an Amendment in 1987 was made so as to permit the recovery of such anticipated costs. A further Amendment was made in 1991 so as to permit the recovery of the costs of such works which could also be made at the expenses of any person or body of persons. By said Amendment, provision was made suitably so as to enable the State Government to collect toll either by itself or through an agent authorised by it. By subsequent Amendment in 1999, in cases of integrated projects declared by Government as single entity, which consists of bridges, tunnels, approach roads or section of roads or by-

Explanation given to sub-Section 1-A of Section 20 would be most important which reads thus :

"Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the expression "capital outlay" shall include the anticipated cost of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening, structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and interest on such outlay at such rates as the State Government may fix until the full amount of such outlay is recovered.