IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C) No. 35535 of 2007(E)
1. V.J.SEBASTIAN, PRESIDENT,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER,
... Respondent
2. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED
4. C.H.PAVITHRAN, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE MECHERIL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :17/12/2007
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
=W.P.(C)=No.=35535 = = = = = =
= = = = = =
OF 2007 - E
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th December, 2007
J U D G M E N T
Petitioner is a stage carriage operator and is also the President
of the Kerala State Limited Stop Stage Carriage Operators
Association. Petitioner is operating in the route Kannur-Thalassery
Kozhikode-Thrissur and according to him his route is fully covered
through the National Highway. It is stated that consequent on the
closure of Moidu Bridge in between Kannur-Thalassery, in the
meeting convened by the authorities on 25-6-2007, it was decided
that the stage carriage operators passing through Moidu Bridge will
take alternate route which is indicated in Ext. P5.
2. The present complaint of the petitioner is that in the
alternate route which is fixed in Ext. P5 there are two places where
toll is collected, that is, Mamakunnu Bridge and Parappuram Bridge.
Petitioner would submit that in view of this an additional liability is
caused to him and other operators. It is his contention that at the
W.P.(C) No. 35535 OF 2007
– 2 –
time when contract was awarded to the 4th respondent this
additional collection was not envisaged and as it is not beneficial to
the stage carriage operators like him or the state he should be
absolved from payment of toll at the aforesaid two bridges. The
stand of the Stage Government is that so long as the petitioner is
taking the alternate route as indicated in Ext. P5, it is the
petitioner’s liability to pay the toll.
3. Having heard the counsel for the petitioner and also the
learned Govt. Pleader I confess my inability to accept the contention
now raised by the petitioner. It may be true that this additional
collection was not envisaged by the authorities at the time when the
tender was fixed in favour of the 4th respondent. It may also be true
that this is a windfall for the 4th respondent and the State is not the
beneficiary. However, that does not absolve the stage carriage
operators or others, who make use of the bridges so long as the
right to collect toll is in favour of the 4th respondent in terms of the
contract that is awarded in his favour. Therefore, if the petitiner is
making use of those bridges it is his liability to pay the toll that is
due.
W.P.(C) No. 35535 OF 2007
– 3 –
4. Petitioner is not in a position to establish his claim for
exclusion of this liability by referring to either the contract between
the 4th respondent and the State or any statutory provision. In such
circumstances, I uphold the entitlement of the 4th respondent to
collect the toll.
Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
ANTONY DOMINIC
JUDGE
jan/-