The Honourable Mr v. Union of India

21.8.1998 authorising the II Respondent to collect the fees forcrossing of Athupalam Bridge across Noyyal river at KM 161/2 on NH47.Writ Petition No.7366 of 2003 filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Mandamusforbearing the ISt and 5th respondents from collecting toll feesfrom the motor vehicle owners who pass through the Athupalam Bridgeover Noyyal River on the South of Coimbatore city and refund theamount collected in excess of the cost of construction of the Bridgein the above mentioned Athupalam to the 4th Respondent.For petitioner in W.P.No.20332 of 1998 : Mr.S.KarthikeyanFor Petitioner in W.P.No.3826 and 19802/99 : Mr.K.M.Vijayan SC forM/s Law and LawFor Petitioner in W.P.No.5459 of 1999 : Mr.M. PalaniFor Petitioner in W.P.No. 7366 of 2003 : Mr.R.Gandhi SC for Mr.M.KamalanathanFor respondent-1 in all W.Ps.: Mr.V.T.Gopalan, Addl. Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr.P.Wilson, Asst. Solicitor General of IndiaFor respondent-2 in W.P.3826/99,19802/99 5459/99 and for 3rdrespondent in W.P.20332/98 & for the 5th respondent in W.P. 7366 of 2003 :Mrs.Nalini Chidambaram, Senior Counsel for M/s.R.MurariFor 2nd respondent in WP 20332/98,W.P.7366/2003 and for 3rd respondentin WP 3826/99,19802/99,5459/99 &7366 : Mr.D.Srinivasan, AGP4th Respondent in W.P.7366/03Common OrderS.J.Mukhopadhaya,JIn all these Writ Petitions, almost similar prayer having beenmade and as common question of law is involved, they were heardtogether and disposed of by this common order.2. In two Writ Petitions, namely W.P.Nos.3826 and 19802 of1999, the petitioner-Citizen Vice Club, represented by itsPresident, has prayed for a declaration that Section 8-A of theNational Highways Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the N.H.Act') read with Notification No.530, New Delhi, 21.8.1998, issued bythe respondent-Union of India, i.e. Ministry of Surface Transport https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Road Wings), authorising levy of collection of fees by therespondent-M/s.Larsen and Toubro Limited (for short, "L & T")-- (i)for use of "Aathu Paalam" Bridge across the River 'Noyyal' inKm.161/2 of N.H.47 in W.P.No.3826 of 1999 and (ii) for use of partof National Highways i.e. Coimbatore by-pass starting from Km.141.0of N.H.47 at Salem Bridge and re-joining N.H.47 at Km.171/200 atPalghat side in W.P.No.19802 of 1999, as illegal, unconstitutionaland violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and theprinciple of the Indian Contract Act and inconsistent with thestatutory requirements of the N.H.Act. The very same NotificationNo.530, New Delhi, 21.8.1998 is challenged in W.P.No.5459 of 1999.3. In two other Writ Petitions, namely W.P.Nos.20332 of 1998and 7366 of 2003, prayer has been made to issue a Writ of Mandamus,(i) in W.P.No.20332 of 1998: forbearing the respondent-L & T fromcollecting the toll amount from the vehicles passing through the Newand Old Bridges of Aathu Paalam at Coimbatore city falling on N.H.47on the strength of contract entered into between the respondents 1and 2 and 3, dated 3.10.1997 and subsequently to direct the Union ofIndia, represented by Chief Engineer (Planning and PrivateInvestments), Ministry of Surface Transport and the Chief Engineerof the National Highways of the Department of Highways of the Stateto take over the maintenance of the Bridge for themselves and (ii)in W.P.No.7366 of 2003: forbearing the respondent-Union of India,Ministry of Surface Transport (Road Wings) and the respondent-L & Tfrom collecting toll fees from the motor vehicle owners who passthrough the Aathu Paalam Bridge over Noyyal River on the South ofCoimbatore City and refund the amount collected in excess of thecost of construction of the Bridge in the said Aathu Paalam to therespondent-Commissioner of the Corporation of Coimbatore. 4. For determination of the issues, it becomes necessary to setout few essential facts, as it appears from the pleadings and otherrecords and noticed hereunder: (a) Pursuant to Amendment by Act 26 of 1995 with effect from16.6.1995, the Union of India introduced Section 8-A of the N.H.Act, authorising the Central Government to enter into an agreementwith any private person other than the State or Local Body, for thedevelopment and maintenance of the whole or any part of a NationalHighway and to collect and retain fees by the private persons atsuch rate, for services or benefits rendered by them as the CentralGovernment by the Notification provide. Pursuant to the aforesaidprovision, a Scheme called "Build-Operate-Transfer" (for short,"B.O.T") was introduced on 1.9.1995, by the Government of India fromits Ministry of Surface Transport, by issuing a Global Tender forNational Highway Projects on B.O.T. basis for different parts ofdifferent Highways including Coimbatore By-pass, which includesRoad-Over-Bridge and Cross Drainage Structures on N.H.47 in the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ State of Tamil Nadu. The interested companies/consortium ofcompanies were asked to purchase the tender documents which were tobe submitted on or before 18.12.1995. Under the B.O.T. Scheme, thecontractor was required to construct and maintain the facility forthe entire construction period out of their own funds and expectedto recoup the cost incurred by collection of a fee from the users ofthe facility. In the global tender notice, as also in the tenderdocuments, it was specifically mentioned that the entrepreneurs willbe permitted to recover the investment along with the returnsthrough levy of fees from users of facility for a certain specifiedperiod, after which the facility will revert to the Government.(b) The respondent-L & T, along with others, submitted thetender papers. The Union of India has felt that the project shouldbe an integrated project for the construction of by-pass road aswell as two additional lane-bridges on K.M.162/2 on N.H.47, apartfrom strengthening and refurbishing the existing two lane-bridges.The respondent-L & T being the best tenderer, was accepted andawarded the work and a construction agreement was entered intobetween the respondents on 3.10.1997. According to the constructionagreement, it is the obligation of the respondent-entity toconstruct the by-pass road and bridges and to maintain and operatethe same for the respective construction period, and at the end ofthe construction period, the bridges and the bye-pass road will betransferred to the Union of India by the respondent-L & T Ltd.(c) The respondent-L & T completed the work and the projectswere thrown open to public in December 1998 and the bye-pass roadhad been completed and thrown open for the traffic purpose since 19thJanuary, 2000.(d) Union of India, in exercise of its power conferred bySection 8-A of the N.H. Act, 1956 issued Gazette Notification inNos.S.O.716(E) and S.O.717(E), both dated 21.8.1998, fixing the tollfor both Aathu Paalam Bridge and Coimbatore By-pass roadrespectively. It was revised from time to time by the subsequentNotifications, including Notification Nos.S.O.383(E) and S.O.384(E),both dated 3.5.2000, Notification Nos.716(E) and 717(E), both dated19.6.2003, Notification Nos.1087(E) and 1088(E), both dated1.8.2005, Notification Nos.943(E) and 944(E), both dated 23.6.2006,etc. It is only when the Aathu Paalam Bridge was constructed andthe Notifications were issued on 21.8.1998, most of the WritPetitions were preferred between 1998 and 1999, except the one whichwas preferred subsequently in 2003.5. The petitioners, while challenging the vires of Section 8-Aof the N.H. Act, 1956 and the Notifications dated 21.8.1998, tookthe following pleas to assail the Notifications: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (a) The respondent-Union of India and the respondent-L & Tentered into a contract in a secret manner without inviting an opentender to reduce the cost of the public at large.(b) The cost for the said Scheme, i.e. construction of AathuPaalam Bridge which is within the municipal area of CoimbatoreCorporation and the by-pass road to an extent of 26 Kms. wereestimated to be constructed at the cost of Rs.6 crores and Rs.95crores respectively, but the agreement was entered at the rate muchhigher than the schedule of rates available under the HighwayManual, which is Rs.58 lakhs for the Bridge and around Rs.30 croresfor the by-pass road. Further plea was taken that the B.O.T. Schemewas entered into between the respondent-Union of India and therespondent-L & T in a secret manner without being considered by acompetent tender issued and while repaying the cost of the Bridge,much advantage was made in favour of the respondent-L & T, which wasable to collect a very higher amount than the actual constructioncost which they incurred in constructing the Bridges as well as theby-pass road for a period of 21 years and 32 years respectively.(c) Inspite of the fact that Section 8-A of the N.H. Actauthorises the "B.O.T " Scheme, as per the guidelines, while thecontract was awarded, not even a single guideline had been takencare of. (d) Though it was essential under Section 10 of the N.H. Actto place the Notifications/agreement before the Parliament, the samehad not been carried out.(e) There is a clandestine understanding between therespondent-Union of India and the respondent-L & T Ltd. right fromthe entry into the agreement in fixation of fees. The agreement wasoriginally planned for the by-pass road, but later on it wasdeliberately coupled with the existing Aathu Paalam Bridge, whichcosts hardly about Rs.50 lakhs to Rs.60 lakhs as per the Highwaysestimate. (f) The respondent-L & T Ltd. was authorised to put toll pointsat two places, one at Aathu Paalam Bridge and another at the by-passRoad.(g) Inspite of Section 2 of the N.H. Act which specificallyexclude such operation of the Highways within the Municipal limitsfrom the purview of National Highways, the Government had broughtAathu Paalam Bridge, which falls within the Municipal limits, andthe respondent-Union of India has no jurisdiction at all to couplethe Aathu Paalam Bridge extension within the purview of the N.H.Act, which is ultra-vires Section 2 of the N.H. Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (h) The power under Section 8-A of the N.H. Act cannot beexercised by the authorities in respect of the portion of the Roador Bridge which had not been declared as 'National Highway'. (i) Section 8-A of the N.H. Act so far as it authorises aprivate person to collect fees without representation from thepersons who pay the fees, would amount to excessive delegation ofessential Legislative function between the Executive and the privateperson.(j) Section 8-A of the N.H. Act insofar it imposes anobligation on a citizen in respect of a contract between the CentralGovernment and the private person without any privity orrepresentation from the citizens, is Constitutionally impermissible,as it violates the principle of enforceability of an agreement underthe Indian Contract Act.(k) Section 8-A of the N.H. Act is also a direct infringementbetween the Panchayat and the local authorities after theiracquisition of Constitutional status pursuant to Constitution's 73rdAmendment. (l) The levy of fee under Section 8-A of the N.H. Act inrespect of Highways coming within the local limits of theMunicipality, is ultra-vires Section 2 of the N.H. Act read withArticles 243-W and Schedule 12 of the Constitution of India, whereinthe maintenance etc. of Roads and Bridges are under the exclusivedomain of the State Government.(m) Section 8-A of the N.H. Act insofar as it delegates apublic duty to a private person for collecting the toll/fee isviolative of Article 266 of the Constitution of India.6. On the other hand, following stand has been taken by therespective counsel for the respondent-Union of India and therespondent-L & T, who prayed to dismiss the Writ Petitions:(i) The agreement reached between the Union of India and the L& T in 1995, having not been challenged by the petitioners and theyhaving not taken part in the bid, the Writ Petitions are notmaintainable.(ii) The Vires of any law cannot be challenged in a PublicInterest Litigation.(iii) If there is a conflict between the Central GovernmentLegislation and State Legislation relating to Municipality, CentralAct will prevail.(iv) Before the issuance of the Notification dated 21.8.1998,Parliamentary approval as required under Section 10 of the N.H. Actwas taken. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (v) Legislative competence having not been challenged, and inthe absence of any violation of fundamental right, Section 8-A ofthe N.H. Act should not be held to be ultra-vires.(vi) L & T, having already spent a sum of Rs.1.5 crores, aftercompletion of work, the challenge to the Notification and the Laws,is uncalled for.(vii) The respondent-Union of India has explained the basis forfixing the rates of toll/fee, and the Central Government in theyear 1978, made Rules for the services rendered relating to use ofpermanent Bridges costing more than Rs.25 lakhs completed and openedto traffic on or after 1st April, 1976. When the Notification of theabove said Rules, 1978 was issued, the rates of fee chargeable isgiven under the Schedule to the said Notification and the levy oftoll/fee shall be for a period of considered adequate to recover thecost of the Project and the said Rules were further modified by theMinistry's Notification, dated 19.2.1992, by which cost of theProject which qualify for levy of toll/fee, was raised to Rs.1crore, but toll/fee rates remained unchanged. The rates of fees tobe levied for Bridges costing more than Rs.1 crore, as laid down bythe Notification dated 19.2.1992, is as follows:Sl.NoName of the VehicleAmount inRs.1Car/JeepRs.5/-2Bus/TruckRs.15/-3Other Mechanicallypropelled vehicles likeMobile Crane, EarthMovers, Road Roller andDozers.Rs.20/-(viii) In the year 1997, the Rule was further modified to theextent that the levy of toll was made applicable to permanentBridges, as also the upgraded Sections of National Highway. No timelimit for collection of those toll was prescribed, which is to becharged in perpetuity by the Executive Agency. As per the 1997Notification, the Rules, called as "National Highways (Fees for useof National Highway Section and Permanent Bridges-Public FundedProjects) Rules, 1997, was framed. Rule 10 of the above said Rulesdeals with special condition when Section or Project built by theGovernment are used for developing adjacent "B.O.T" Projects ofprivate parties. The above Rule provides to improve the financialviability of the B.O.T. Project as decided by the competentauthority, and the Concessionaire may be allowed to collect andretain the fees to collect it for the full concession period asagreed to in specific agreement in respect of the facility offeredto him. Under Rule 10 of the above said 1997 Rules, the CentralGovernment can allow the Concessionaire to collect and retain the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ fee, which is being followed in the B.O.T. Cases for the workallotted under Section 8-A of the N.H. Act. 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesand noticed their contentions, as also the Laws, as referred to, andthe Notifications. We have also noticed the judgments referred toby one or other parties.8. One of the questions raised is that Section 8-A of the N.H.Act in respect of the Highways which is coming within the locallimits of the Municipality, is ultra-vires Section 2 of the N.H.Act read with Article 243-W and 12th Schedule of the Constitution, asthe maintenance etc. of Roads and Bridges are within the exclusivedomain of the State.9. Section 8-A of the N.H. Act empowering the CentralGovernment to enter into an agreement with private persons fordevelopment and maintenance of National Highways, was inserted byNational Highway (Amendment) Act, 1995 with effect from 16.6.1995.Subsequently, Section 2 of the N.H. Act which relates to declarationof certain Highways to be National Highways, was amended by theNational Highway Laws (Amendment) Act, 1997 with effect from24.1.1997 and the words "except such part thereof as are situatedwithin any Municipal area" were omitted, thereby, apart from each ofthe Highways specified in Schedule to the N.H. Act, 1956, theCentral Government was empowered to include any other Highway to beNational Highway including parts which are situated within anyMunicipal area. As such, after the amendment of Section 2 of theN.H. Act, no Legislation is necessary to add or delete the Highwaysfrom the Schedule to the Act, as evident from the amended Section 2of the N.H. Act and quoted hereunder:"Section 2: Declaration of certain highwaysto be national highways--(1) Each of the highways specified in theSchedule is hereby declared to be a nationalhighway.(2) The Central Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, declareany other highway to be a national highway andon the publication of such notification, suchhighway shall be deemed to be specified in theSchedule.(3) The Central Government may, by likenotification, omit any highway from the Scheduleand on the publication of such notification, thehighway so omitted shall cease to be a nationalhighway." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ In view of the amendment to Section 2 of the N.H. Act, it cannot bealleged that Section 8-A of the N.H. Act is in conflict with Section2 of the N.H. Act.10. In the present case, the petitioners have questioned theLegislative competence of Central Government to enact Section 8-A ofthe N.H. Act, alleged to be "ultra-vires" Section 243-W of theConstitution of India. While dealing with the Legislative competenceof the Parliament to enact a Law, the Supreme Court in the decisionreported in 1994 (5) SCC 54 (Attorney General for India vs. AmratlalPrajivandas), noticed its earlier decision of the Constitution Benchof seven Judges, reported in 1971 (2) SCC 779 (Union of India vs.H.S.Dhillon) and observed as follows:"23. ...... The test evolved in the saiddecision is this in short: Where the legislativecompetence of Parliament to enact a particularstatute is questioned, one must look at theseveral entries in List II to find out (applyingthe well-known principles in this behalf)whether the said statute is relatable to any ofthose entries. If the statute does not relate toany of the entries in List II, no furtherinquiry is necessary. It must be held thatParliament is competent to enact that statutewhether by virtue of the entries in List I andList III or by virtue of Article 248 read withEntry 97 of List I. .... " 11. To find out the Legislative competence so far as NationalHighways and other Roads/Bridges are concerned, one may refer toList-I-Union List and List-II-State List, of Schedule 7 andSchedules 11 & 12 of the Constitution of India and the followingfacts emerge from those Schedules: Nature ofRoad/HighwayListScheduleEntryLegislativecompetence /Competent body1. Highway declaredby or under law madeby Parliament to benational highwaysI723Union List/Central Government https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Nature ofRoad/HighwayListScheduleEntryLegislativecompetence /Competent body2. Communications,that is to say,roads, bridges,ferries, and othermeans ofcommunication notspecified in List-I(i.e. State Roadsand Bridges) II713State List /State Government 3. Roads, culverts,bridges, ferries,waterways and othermeans ofcommunication(Article 243-G ofthe Constitution ofIndia – Powers,authority and theresponsibilities ofPanchayat).It relates toPanchayat Roads andBridges. -1113Panchayats4. Roads and Bridges(Article 243-W ofthe Constitution ofIndia-Powers,authority andresponsibilities ofMunicipalities,etc.).It relates toMunicipal Roads andBridges.-124Municipalities 12. The Legislative powers of the Parliament and the StateLegislatures, is governed by Articles 246 and 258 of Part-XI of theConstitution of India and the Parliament has exclusive power toLegislate with respect to any of the matters enumerated in List-I(Union List) of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India; the StateLegislature has exclusive power to make laws with respect to any ofthe matters enumerated in List-II (State List) of Schedule 7 of theConstitution of India. In the decision of the Supreme Court reported https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in 2005 (3) SCC 212 (Govt. of A.P. vs. J.B. Educational Society),the Supreme Court, while dealing with the Legislative competence ofthe Parliament and the State Legislature, observed as follows: "10. There is no doubt that bothParliament and the State Legislature are supremein their respective assigned fields. It is theduty of the court to interpret the legislationsmade by Parliament and the State Legislature insuch a manner as to avoid any conflict. However,if the conflict is unavoidable, and the twoenactments are irreconcilable, then by the forceof the non obstante clause in clause (1) ofArticle 246, the parliamentary legislation wouldprevail notwithstanding the exclusive power ofthe State Legislature to make a law with respectto a matter enumerated in the State List." 13. In the present case, we have noticed that there is no over-riding power so far as it relates to National Highways, State Roadsand Bridges, Panchayat Roads and Bridges and Municipal Roads andBridges. They are separate and the Parliament or State Legislatureor competent body has exclusive power to Legislate with respect tomatters relating to the respective Roads and Bridges. For example,the National Highways is an exclusive domain of the Parliament underList-I of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India, which canlegislate with regard to the National Highway. However, in respectof the State Roads and Bridges, the State Legislature having beenempowered – vide List-II of Schedule 7 of the Constitution of India,the State Legislature can legislate in respect of such State Roadsand Bridges. Similar is the position so far as it relates toPanchayat and Municipal Roads and Bridges, subject to the provisionsof the Constitution of India, and if the Legislature of the StateBye-Laws empower such local bodies. 14. Much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel forthe petitioners on Article 243-W of the Constitution of India, whichrelates to power, authority and responsibilities of theMunicipalities, etc., as shown hereunder:"Article 243-W: Powers, authority andresponsibilities of Municipalities, etc.--Subject to the provisions of thisConstitution, the Legislature of a State may, bylaw, endow--(a) the Municipalities with such powers andauthority as may be necessary to enable them tofunction as institutions of self-government andsuch law may contain provisions for thedevolution of powers and responsibilities uponMunicipalities, subject to such conditions as https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ may be specified therein, with respect to--(i) the preparation of plans for economicdevelopment and social justice;(ii) the performance of functions and theimplementation of schemes as may be entrusted tothem including those in relation to the matterslisted in the Twelfth Schedule;(b) the Committees with such powers andauthority as may be necessary to enable them tocarry out the responsibilities conferred uponthem including those in relation to the matterslisted in the Twelfth Schedule." From Article 243-W of the Constitution of India, it will be evidentthat the said provision is not only subject to the provisions of theConstitution of India, the Legislature of a State, by law, also mayempower the Municipality with such power and functions, includingthose in relation to the matters listed in Schedule 12.15. So far as the Municipality Roads and Bridges are concerned,in view of the Law if any laid down by the Legislature of the State,the concerned Municipality may implement its scheme and perform thefunctions in relation to such Municipality Roads and Bridges, and ithas nothing to do with the National Highway, which is in theexclusive domain of the Parliament and the Central Government.16. We accordingly hold that Section 8-A of the N.H. Act andArticle 243-W of the Constitution of India, are not repugnant toeach other and they operate in different fields; the object andpurpose of the provisions of the two enactments relate to differentfields, namely that Roads and Bridges, as in the present case.17. The other ground challenged is that Section 8-A of the N.H.Act is ultra-vires Article 266 of the Constitution of India. Forproper appreciation of the matter, it is desirable to notice therelevant provisions relating to fees for services or benefitsrendered on National Highways, i.e. Sections 7 and 8-A of the N.H.Act, 1956 and quoted hereunder:"Section 7: Fees for services or benefitsrendered on national highways--(1) The Central Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, levy feesat such rates as may be laid down by rules madein this behalf for services or benefits renderedin relation to the use of ferries, permanentbridges the cost of construction of each ofwhich is more than rupees twenty-five lakhs andwhich are opened to traffic on or after the 1st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ day of April 1976, temporary bridges and tunnelson national highways and the use of sections ofhighways:Provided that if the Central Government isof opinion that it is necessary in the publicinterest so to do, it may, by like notification,specify any bridge in relation to the use ofwhich fees shall not be leviable under this sub-section.(2) Such fees when so levied shall becollected in accordance with the rules madeunder this Act.(3) Any fee leviable immediately before thecommencement of this Act for services orbenefits rendered in relation to the use offerries, temporary bridges and tunnels on anyhighway specified in the Schedule shall continueto be leviable under this Act unless and untilit is altered in exercise of the power conferredby sub-section (1). Section 8-A: Power of Central Government toenter into agreements for development andmaintenance of national highways:--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained inthis Act, the Central Government may enter intoan agreement with any person in relation to thedevelopment, maintenance of the whole or anypart of a national highway.(2) Notwithstanding anything contained insection 7, the person referred to in sub-section(1) is entitled to collect and retain fees atsuch rate, for services or benefits rendered byhim as the Central Government may, bynotification in the Official Gazette, specifyhaving regard to the expenditure involved inbuilding, maintenance, management and operationof the whole or part of such national highway,interest on the capital invested, reasonablereturn, the volume of traffic and the period ofsuch agreement.(3) A person referred to in sub-section (1)shall have powers to regulate and control thetraffic in accordance with the provisionscontained in Chapter VIII of the Motor VehiclesAct, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the national highwayforming subject matter of such agreement forproper management thereof." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Section 7 of the N.H. Act, as evident, empowers the CentralGovernment to levy fees at such rates as may be laid downby the Rules for the services and benefits rendered by it inrelation to the use of Bridges etc. Under Section 7(2) of the N.H.Act, such fees so levied, has to be collected in accordance with theRules, namely the National Highways Rules, 1957 being issued in thisregard. So far as Section 8-A(1) of the N.H. Act is concerned, itnot only empowers the Central Government to enter into an agreementwith any private person in relation to development, maintenance ofwhole or any part of the National Highway, under Section 8-A(2) ofthe N.H. Act, notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7 of theN.H. Act, such person is entitled to collect and retain the fees atsuch rate for services or benefits rendered by him, as the CentralGovernment may by Notification specify.18. Therefore, it will be evident that while Section 7 of theN.H. Act empowers the Central Government to levy and collect feesfor the services or benefits rendered by it in relation to the useof permanent Bridges, etc., under Section 8-A(1) of the N.H. Act,the person would develop, maintain, whole or part of NationalHighway, and under Section 8-A(2), such person is also entitled tocollect and retain fees at the rate prescribed by the CentralGovernment.19. Article 266 of the Constitution of India relates to'Consolidated Funds and the Public Accounts of India, and of theStates, as reproduced hereunder: "Article 266: Consolidated Funds and publicaccounts of India and of the States--(1) Subject to the provisions of article 267and to the provisions of this Chapter withrespect to the assignment of the whole or part ofthe net proceeds of certain taxes and duties toStates, all revenues received by the Governmentof India, all loans raised by that Government bythe issue of treasury bills, loans or ways andmeans advances and all moneys received by thatGovernment in repayment of loans shall form oneconsolidated fund to be entitled "theConsolidated Fund of India", and all revenuesreceived by the Government of a State, all loansraised by that Government by the issue oftreasury bills, loans or ways and means advancesand all moneys received by that Government inrepayment of loans shall form one consolidatedfund to be entitled "the Consolidated Fund of theState".(2) All other public moneys received by oron behalf of the Government of India or the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Government of a State shall be credited to thepublic account of India or the public account ofthe State, as the case may be.(3) No moneys out of the Consolidated Fundof India or the Consolidated Fund of a Stateshall be appropriated except in accordance withlaw and for the purposes and in the mannerprovided in this Constitution." From the aforesaid Article 266 of the Constitution of India, it willbe evident that if the Revenue was received by the Government ofIndia, it shall form the Consolidated Fund of India and all otherpublic money received by it or on its behalf, that should becredited to the Public Account of India. Therefore, if any fee iscollected by the Central Government or on its behalf under Section 7of the N.H. Act, such money received by it on its behalf is to becredited to the Public Accounts of India, but if a person other thanthe Union of India (Central Government) or the State Government,collects any fee, as provided under Section 8-A(2) of the N.H. Act,such individual person is not supposed to deposit the money soreceived as fee in the Public Accounts of India.20. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion and holdthat Section 8-A of the N.H. Act is not repugnant to Article 266 ofthe Constitution of India and on that ground, no interference iscalled for in these Writ Petitions.21. The other ground taken is that the Central Government,while issuing the Notifications dated 21.8.1998, had not laid downthe Notifications before the Parliament, as required under Section10 of the N.H. Act, which reads as follows:"Section 10: Laying of notifications, rules,etc., before Parliament--All notifications or agreements issued orentered into under this Act shall be laid beforeboth Houses of Parliament as soon as may beafter they are issued or entered into."22. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General,assisted by Mr.P.Wilson, learned Assistant Solicitor General,appearing for the respondent-Union of India, submitted that theNotifications dated 21.8.1998 were placed before the Parliament andapproved and also produced the Original File of the CentralGovernment, in F.No.N.H.15013/27/94-PL, in support of such claim.The said File not only contains different notes and lettersgiven/issued since 28.9.1994, but the copies of paper publication ofglobal tender, project summary, minutes of the Evaluating Committee,are also on record. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

23. A submission was made by Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learnedAdditional Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Union ofIndia, that Section 10 of the N.H. Act, is "directory and notmandatory" and therefore, even if it is presumed that theNotification fixing the rate of fee is not placed before theParliament, it will not invalidate the Notification issued by theCentral Government. Reliance was placed on the decision of theSupreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1149 (Atlas CycleIndustries Ltd. vs. State of Haryana). That was a caserelating to Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under Section 3(6) of the Essential Commodities Act, there was arequirement of law that every order made under Section 3, as soonas it is made, be placed before both Houses of Parliament. In thesaid case, while fixing the maximum selling price of variouscategories of iron and steel, including black plain iron sheets, theCentral Government issued the Notification fixing therates, but the said Notification was not placed before Housesof Parliament, and the Supreme Court held as follows:"32. From the foregoing discussion, itinevitably follows that the Legislature neverintended that non-compliance with therequirement of laying as envisaged by sub-section (6) of Section 3 of the Act shouldrender the order void. Consequently non-layingof the aforesaid notification fixing the maximumselling prices of various categories of iron andsteel including the commodity in question beforeboth Houses of Parliament cannot result innullification of the notification. Accordingly,we answer the aforesaid question in thenegative. In view of this answer, it is notnecessary to deal with the other contentionraised by the respondent to the effect that theaforesaid notification being of a subsidiarycharacter, it was not necessary to lay it beforeboth Houses of Parliament to make it valid."24. Section 10 of the N.H. Act being similar to Section 3(6) ofthe Essential Commodities Act, in view of the Supreme Court decisionrendered in that case (AIR 1979 SC 1149), we answer the question inthe negative and against the petitioners.25. The other question raised relates to the validity of theagreement, but we are not inclined to answer the same, as none ofthe petitioners have challenged the agreement as reached betweenthe respondents-Union of India and L & T. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

26. In view of the foregoing discussion and findings, it is notnecessary to deal with the other contentions as raised by thepetitioners, as the same are covered by the findings rendered above.It is also not necessary to refer the other judgments relied on byone or other counsel for the parties, as they are not relevant inthe present context.27. We find no merits in any of the Writ Petitions andaccordingly, the same are dismissed. But, in the facts andcircumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. TheMiscellaneous Petitions are closed.Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.csTo1. Union of India, rep. by Chief Engineer (Planning and Private Investments), Ministry of Surface Transport, 1, Parliament Street, New Delhi-110 001. 2. The Chief Engineer, National Highways, Department of Highways, Chennai-600 005.3. The SecretaryDepartment of Highways,State of Tamil Nadu,Chennai 9.4. The District Collector,Coimbatore DistrictCollectorate,Coimbatore 18. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

5. The CommissionerCorporation of CoimbatoreBig Bazaar Street,Coimbatore 641 001.6. The Secretary to GovernmentDepartment of HighwaysState of TamilnaduFort St. George, Chennai-9.1 cc to Mr.G. Karthikeyan, Advocate, Sr. 10991 cc to M/s. La Law, Advocate, Sr. 17891 cc to Mr. R. Murari, Advocate, Sr. 1763W.P.Nos.20332 of 1998 etc batch.RSV (CO)kk,sr 30/1