{"id":172994,"date":"2002-04-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-04-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002"},"modified":"2016-02-05T20:51:32","modified_gmt":"2016-02-05T15:21:32","slug":"kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","title":{"rendered":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 30\/04\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM\n\nWRIT PETITION No.21278 of 2000 and WP.No.21949 of 2000\nand\nW.P.M.P.Nos.31861 and 31862 of 2000\n\nKodaikanal Motor Bus Owners'\nAssociation, represented by\nits Secretary, R.Jayamanohar                    Petitioner in\n                                                WP.21278\/2000\n\n\nKodaikanal Motor Bus Owners'\nAssociation, represented by\nits Secretary, S.M.Chandrasekar                 Petitioner in\n                                                WP.21949\/2000\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Government of Tamil Nadu,\n   represented by its Secretary\n   to Government, Highways Department,\n   Chennai-9.\n\n2. The District Collector,'\n   Dindigul.\n\n3. The Commissioner,\n   Kodaikanal Municipality,\n   Kodaikanal.\n\n4. Jayabalan                                    Respondents in\n                                                both cases.\n\n\n\n                Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India\npraying for the issue of a writ of certiorari as stated therein.\n\n!For petitioner in 2\nW.P.No.21278 of 2000            :  Mr.M.Krishnappan\n\nFor petitioner in\nW.P.No.21949 of 2000            :  Mr.V.Raghupathy\n\n\nFor respondents 1 and 2                :  Mr.R.Thirugnanasambandam,\n                                                Special Government Pleader\n\nFor 3rd respondent                      :  Mr.V.Radhakrishnan\n\nFor 4th respondent                      :  Mr.K.R.Thiagarajan\n\n:ORDER\n<\/pre>\n
                In both the writ petitions, the petitioners, Kodaikanal  Motor
\nBus  owners’ Association and Kodaikanal Lorry Owners’ Association respectively
\nhave questioned  the  validity  of  G.O.(D)  51,  Highways  Department,  dated
\n14.6.2000  in  so  far  as it imposes the levy of toll in respect of buses and<\/p>\n
lorries operated by the petitioners Associations.  Both  the  petitioners  are
\naggrieved  by  the  impugned  order levying toll for using the Kodaikanal ghat
\nroad.\n<\/p>\n
                2.  For convenience it will be  sufficient  to  refer  to  the
\naffidavit  filed in respect of W.P.No.21278 of 2000 considering that identical
\nissues are raised in both the writ petitions.\n<\/p>\n
                3.   The  petitioner  Association is a registered Association.
\nThe rate of levy in respect of buses by virtue of the  impugned  order  is  at
\nRs.75\/- per bus per day.  The members of the petitioner Association are plying
\ntheir  vehicles through Dindigul \u2013 Kodaikanal road and therefore, they will be
\nsubjected to levy of toll every day.  It is further submitted that the toll is
\nprovided for under the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, hereinafter called  “the  Act”.
\nThe  Act  has  been  amended  in its application in the State of Tamil Nadu by
\nsubstituting Section 2 of the said Act.  Under Section 2 of the Act, the State
\nGovernment is authorised to levy toll in respect of any road or  bridge  made,
\nimproved or  repaired  at  their  expense  after  1.4.1931.  The Government is
\nauthorised to collect the toll only for the recovery of  the  amount  expended
\nupon the  road  or  bridge.  Under Highways Act, 1956 also toll is leviable in
\nrespect of road or bridge  on  the  National  Highway.    The  Motor  Vehicles
\nTaxation  Act,  1931,  was  enacted for the purpose of abolishing such levy of
\ntolls in the State of Tamil Nadu as existing from the commencement of the  Act
\nand  also  for  abolishing  the  levy  of taxes on motor vehicles by the local
\nbodies.  Section 10 of the Act provides for utilisation of the proceeds of the
\nmotor vehicles tax thus collected.  The Taxation Act, 1931, was repealed  with
\neffect from 1.4.1974 under 1974 Act.  Section 17 of the 1974 Act, provides for
\nthe utilisation  of the tax collected.  Therefore, according to the petitioner
\nafter the Taxation Act had been enacted, the levy of toll cannot be  continued
\nand  any  toll  could  be  only  in respect of the expenditure incurred in the
\nconstruction of any permanent  bridge  or  approach  road  coming  within  the
\npurview of  the  National  Highways Act.  It is further contended that levy of
\ntoll was made earlier under G.O.Ms.No.134, Municipal Administration and  Water
\nSupply  Department  dated  29.5.1992  and the said order was challenged before
\nthis Court.  In the decision reported in 1993 Writ L.R., 86, the said levy was
\nupheld holding that it is compensatory and that necessary guidelines were also
\navailable.  The levy of toll was for a period of one year and subsequently, it
\nhas been continued year after year, and at present the said levy  is  for  the
\nperiod of  one  year  from  15.6.2000 to 14.6.2001.  The fourth respondent has
\nbeen given the right to collect the toll for  the  period  from  1.11.2000  to
\n14.6.2001 for a sum of Rs.32,05,000\/-.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  According to the petitioner, in the counter filed  by  the
\nfirst  respondent  in  the  year  1992,  which  was  the subject matter of the
\ndecision in 1993 Writ L.R., 86, it was stated that a sum  of  Rs.103.78  lakhs
\nhave  been  spent  by  the  State  Government  for  maintenance of road during
\n1989-1990 to 1991-92.  The petitioner further states  that  according  to  his
\ninformation, the respondents have realised the following toll collection.\n<\/p>\n
        1992-93 to 1995-96              :  Figures not available.\n        1996-97                         :  Rs.62 lakhs.\n        1997-98                         :  Rs.54 lakhs.\n        1998-99                         :  Rs.39 lakhs\n        1999-2000                       :  Figures not available.\n                Total                   :  Rs.1,55,00,000\/-\n\n<\/pre>\n
                5.   According  to  the  petitioner,  the first respondent was
\nentitled to collect the amount only for the actual services rendered till  the
\nperiod the full amount is realised and on the figures stated above, the amount
\nclaimed  to have been spent by the first respondent has already been recovered
\nand therefore, the continued collection of toll was contrary to the provisions
\nof the Act.  It is  further  stated  that  from  the  year  1992  onwards  the
\nGovernment  has not constructed any new road or approach road or any permanent
\nbridge on the DindigulKodainkanal road till  date  and  therefore,  the  first
\nrespondent  not  having  incurred  any  expenditure, there was no necessity to<\/p>\n
collect the toll.  The first respondent has been making only minor repairs  on
\nthe  existing  roads  and that the Motor Vehicles Tax which is being collected
\nwould be more than sufficient to meet the said expenditure.\n<\/p>\n
                6.  It is further stated that the  petitioner  had  challenged
\nthe  earlier levy of toll for the period 1998-99 and 1999-2000 in W.P.Nos.6193
\nof 1999 and 13882 of 1999 before this Court.  When the writ petitions came  up
\nfor orders, the said writ petitions were dismissed as infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
                7.   In the counter filed by the Government, namely, the first
\nand second respondents, it is contended that the levy of toll was necessitated
\ndue to the fact that huge amounts were required to be spent for every year for
\nthe improvement in repairs of the road and bridges leading to Kodaikanal Town.
\nThe climatic conditions and the ravages of the  natural  calamities  of  rain,
\nlandslide etc.,  caused frequent damages to the roads every year.  Taking into
\naccount, the increased rate of tourists every year, special attention is being
\ngiven to the ghat roads and it was found not possible to meet the  expenditure
\nfrom the  normal  revenue.    This Court by order dated 14.12.1992 dismissed a
\nbatch of writ petitions holding that the toll levied by the Government was not
\nonly for recovering the  expenses  incurred  by  them,  but  also  for  future
\nmaintenance and repairs of the roads.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  The  impugned  G.O.    was  passed  after  considering the
\nproposals to enable the third respondent to levy and collect toll at the  said
\nrates as  provided  in  the  notification.    The  following  is the total fee
\ncollection for the period from 1.4.1992 to 31.12.2000:-\n<\/p>\n
        Toll Gate Collection (Yearwise abstract)
\n        Sl.No.  Year                    Amount
\n                                                Rs.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
        1.              1992-93         51,72,442\n        2.              1993-94         51,67,175\n        3.              1994-95         32,12,080\n        4.              1995-96         63,82,153\n        5.              1996-97         62,23,062\n        6.              1997-98         53,52,531\n        7.              1998-99         47,95,279\n        8.              1999-2000       27,42,820\n        9.              2000-2001       16,22,800\n                                        -------------\n                                        4,05,70,942\/-\n                                        -------------\n<\/pre>\n
It is further stated that the said amount was given to the Highways as well as
\nto the Kodainkanal Municipality for the expenditure towards  the  repairs  and
\nmaintenance of  the  roads and bridges.  Following is the expenditure incurred
\nby the Highways Department and the Kodaikanal Municipality:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
EXPENDITURE
\n        Sl.No.          Year            Amount
\n                                                        Rs.\n<\/p>\n
        1.                      1992-93         0.65 lakhs\n        2.                      1993-94         Nil\n        3.                      1994-95         163.31\n        4.                      1995-96         24.56\n        5.                      1996-97         57.04\n        6.                      1997-98         101.50\n        7.                      1998-99         32.90\n        8.                      1999-2000               29.06\n        9.                      2000-2001               90.36\n                                                        --------\n                                                        462.38 lakhs\n                                                        ---------\n<\/pre>\n
                9.  By an amendment under Tamil  Nadu  Act  35  of  2000,  the
\nGovernment  was  empowered  to  levy  toll  in respect of the roads or bridges
\npartly at the expenses of the local body or solely  at  the  expenses  of  the
\nlocal body.    The  length of the roads within the Municipal limits is 12 K.M.
\nThe total population is about 30,000\/- whereas floating population during  the
\nseason is nearly 1 lakh.  The infrastructure such as roads, bridges, etc., are
\nused by  the  tourist vehicles.  Therefore, keeping in mind, the population of
\nthe municipality, the income of the Municipality, it  was  found  to  be  very
\nlimited and  grossly insufficient to meet the huge expenditure.  It is further
\nstated that the stretch of Perumal Malai to Kodaikanal (12 K.M.    Ghat  road)
\nwas widened  in the year 1997-98 and a stretch of 3 K.Ms.  from Silver Cascade
\nto Shenbaganur was widened in the year 1997-98 out of the toll funds  with  an
\nexpenditure of Rs.20,00,000\/-.  Many roads within the Municipal limits leading
\nto the  various  Tourist  spots  are  being widened.  Existing surface of many
\nearthern roads had been improved with block type roads  and  pavements.    The
\nrenewal of  the  damaged  black-top  road is a major work.  In fact during the
\ncurrent year,28 road works were taken up at a cost of Rs.51.66  lakhs  by  the
\nMunicipality  and  the  works  relating  to nine roads to the tune of Rs.47.50
\nlakhs had been taken by the Highways Department.  The said expenditure was met
\nout of the toll fees.  It is further stated that in respect of the expenditure
\nincurred for the years from 1996 to 2000, a total amount  of  Rs.103.36  lakhs
\nwas spent.  Therefore, a total sum of Rs.285.56 lakhs had been incurred during
\nthe past 12 years.\n<\/p>\n
                10.   It  is further stated that the process of maintenance of
\nroads is a continuous one which  has  to  be  taken  up  every  year  and  the
\ndepartment’s funds  are not sufficient to take up such works.  But as on date,
\nworks numbering about 37 works  to  the  tune  of  Rs.99.16  lakhs  are  under
\nprogress.   More proposals sent by the Municipality or Highways Department are
\npending for want of sufficient allocation.  It is true that the Motor Vehicles
\ntaxes collected by the Government are also used by the local  bodies  for  the
\nmaintenance of  the  road.   However, same was not sufficient to meet the huge
\nrequirements.  The petitioner was making a comparison of ghat road leading  to
\nKodaikanal and  National  Highways Road.  As far as the National Highway roads
\nare concerned, the Central Government was maintaining the same.  Kodaikanal is
\na tourist spot and being a hilly area, there is a  heavy  rush  during  summer
\nholidays.  Also due to rainy season and climatic conditions, roads and bridges
\nare heavily  damaged.  Apart from improving the existing surface of the roads,
\nit is also necessary to strengthen the  walls,  parapet  walls,  widening  the
\nexisting roads, are also required to be complied with.\n<\/p>\n
                11.   In  the counter affidavit filed by the third respondent,
\nthe Commissioner of Kodaikanal Municipality also  the  very  same  contentions
\nraised in  the  counter of the second respondent are reiterated.  It is stated
\nthat keeping in mind the population of the Municipality, and the income of the
\nKodaikanal Municipality being very limited are grossly  insufficient  to  meet
\nthe huge  expenditure  and  investment  required  to maintain the roads.  Huge
\nexpenses are involved as a result of frequent rains and landslides, and  roads
\nare damaged  frequently than in the plains.  The expenditure for the repair is
\nalmost double when compared to the expenditure involved in repairing the roads
\nin the plains.  Therefore, the contention of the petitioner  that  the  amount
\nnecessary for services rendered till the period mentioned in the affidavit has
\nalready been  recovered,  is not correct and misleading.  The need to maintain
\nthe roads and bridges is a continuous process.   It  is  further  stated  that
\nPerumalmalai  \u2013  Kodaikanal  stretch (62 K.Ms.)of ghat road was widened in the
\nyear 1997-98.  Many other roads leading to Tourist  spots  were  also  renewed
\nwith pavements.\n<\/p>\n
                12.   It  is  further stated that the basic objects of the Act
\nare clearly  satisfied.    All  the  roads  leading  to  the  Kodaikanal   are
\nextensively  used  by  the  vehicles  belonging  to  the  Association  of  the
\npetitioner.  Keeping in mind occupancy in the bus, the amount of  toll,  which
\nis levied, the levy is negligible.\n<\/p>\n
                13.    A  separate  counter  has  been  filed  by  the  fourth
\nrespondent who has taken the contract for the collection of toll.   The  stand
\nalready  taken  by the Government and the local authority is reiterated in the
\nsaid counter.  It is stated that  the  Government  is  not  only  entitled  to
\ncollect  the  toll  for recovery of the amounts, but they are also entitled to
\ncollect toll for keeping  up  to  maintain  the  roads  and  bridges  in  good
\ncondition.\n<\/p>\n
                14.   A  reply  affidavit  has been filed by the petitioner in
\nW.P.No.21 278 of 2000.  As regards the figures shown by the respondents in the
\ncounter that the respondents have stated that they  have  realised  a  sum  of
\nRs.4,05,70,942\/-  towards  toll  collection  for  the  period from 1.4.1992 to
\n31.12.2000, the petitioner had disputed the same.  But at the same time,  they
\nhave  also mentioned that a sum of Rs.462.36 lakhs was incurred as expenditure
\nfrom 1992 to 2000-2001.  No proper details have been stated as to whether  the
\nentire   expenditure  has  been  spent  only  for  improving,  maintaining  or
\nconstructing the ghat roads alone  or  whether  it  included  the  expenditure
\nincurred  for  maintenance,  repair of other Municipal roads within that Town.
\nIt is further stated that in the recent past, there was no landslide.    There
\nwas  also  no  improvement  of the ghat road and therefore, the toll collected
\nfrom the petitioner cannot be diverted for  maintaining  other  roads  by  the
\nMunicipality.   As far as the road from Dindigul to Kodaikanal, was concerned,
\nthere was absolutely no necessity to collect toll  since  no  expenditure  was
\ninvolved in  maintaining  the  roads.    It  is  further stated that under the
\nprovisions of the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 10  per  cent  of  the  tax  is
\nreserved for  establishing  Rural  Road  Development Fund.  Further, the local
\nauthority also receives a share in the Motor Vehicles Taxation  under  Section
\n17 of  the  Act.   It is further stated that the toll thus collected cannot be
\nused for augmenting the general State revenue and the same should be  utilised
\nonly for  the  purpose  for  which it was levied.  In the said background, the
\nstatement relating to the amounts collected and the expenditure incurred would
\nbe abnormal.  No substantial expenditure had  been  incurred  for  maintaining
\nghat roads  alone.   It is further stated that the toll of Rs.75\/- per bus per
\nday would amount to a collection of Rs.3,00,000\/- per  year.    The  operators
\nwould  be paying only four quarterly tax; but the petitioners are compelled to
\npay five quarterly tax  in  effect.    The  amount  of  Rs.3  lakhs  would  be
\ninsignificant considering  the other collections by way of toll.  No prejudice
\nwhich would be caused to the Government financially by exempting the 11  buses
\nwhich are represented by the petitioner Association in W.P.No.21278 of 2000.\n<\/p>\n
                15.   On  behalf of the petitioner in W.P.No.21278 of 2000 Mr.
\nKrishnappan appears and  for  the  petitioners  in  W.P.21949  of  2000  Mr.V.
\nRaghupathy  Advocate  appears and contended that the impugned levy or toll was
\nnot only illegal, but was also not a bona fide exercise of  the  power.    The
\nfollowing points are raised by Mr.Krishnappan.\n<\/p>\n
        (i)  After  the  Motor  Vehicles  Taxation Act, 1974, the levy of toll
\ncannot be continued and the toll can be  collected  only  in  respect  of  the
\nactual  expenditure  involved in constructing any permanent bridge or approach
\nroad coming with the purview of the National Highways Act.  The provisions  of
\nthe  Toll  Act  cannot  be invoked for the maintenance of the already existing
\nroads and bridges.\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) The levy was only compensatory in  nature  and  hence  cannot  be
\nattributed to  any  other  factor  or  diverted  for  any  other purpose.  The
\nrespondents can collect the Toll only to the  extent  of  the  actual  amounts
\nspent for  the  purposes  specified  under  the  Toll Act.  On the other hand,
\nstatistics would reveal that excessive amounts have been  collected  far  more
\nthan the amount actually spent for the maintenance of the roads.\n<\/p>\n
        (iii)  The  non-levy  of tax in respect of the private vehicles within
\nthe Municipal areas was glaringly discriminatory  and  inconsistent  with  the
\nstand  taken  by  the  respondents  themselves  namely,  that the amounts were
\ncollected only for the maintenance of the road.  If so, there  was  no  proper
\nreason for treating the private vehicles as different from the other vehicles.\n<\/p>\n
        (iv) As provided under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 10 per cent of
\nthe  said  tax  was  reserved  for  establishing  Rural Road Development Fund.
\nTherefore, there was no necessity for the State to collect toll in addition to
\nthe tax collected under the Motor Vehicles Taxation Act.\n<\/p>\n
                16.  Reliance was placed on the following judgments in support
\nof the contention that toll can be collected only towards the actual  expenses
\ninvolved in the maintenance of the road and that the tax was only compensatory
\nin nature.\n<\/p>\n
        (i) KODAIKANAL  LORRY  OWNERS  ASSOCIATION  v.   STATE OF TAMIL NADU &
\nOTHERS (1993 Writ L.R., 86).\n<\/p>\n
        (ii) STATE LORRY OWNERS’ FEDERATION, TAMIL  NADU  v.    SUPERINTENDING
\nENGINEER (NH)<\/a> (1998 Writ L.R.,789).\n<\/p>\n
                17.   In  support  of their contention that while imposing the
\ntoll, amounts actually spent towards the maintenance of the road  alone  could
\nbe  collected  and  not  for any other expenditure of the State or local body,
\nreliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in STATE OF U.P.    v.
\nDEVI DAYAL SINGH (A.I.R.2000 S.C.,<\/a> 961).\n<\/p>\n
                18.   Mr.Krishnappan  further contended that the details given
\nin the counter affidavit regarding the expenses were not correct.  The amounts
\nshown as expenditure for maintaining the roads were  actually  spent  for  the
\nroads  inside  Kodai  Town  and  not  for  the  ghat  roads, as claimed by the
\nrespondents.  The toll can be used only for the maintenance of the ghat  roads
\nalone.   Merely  repeating  the contentions that the maintenance of ghat roads
\nwere expensive and that there were frequent landslides etc.  are  not  at  all
\ncorrect.   In  the  recent  past,  there was no landslide at all in Kodaikanal
\narea.  Learned counsel also took me through the statistics furnished on behalf
\nof respondents and contended that  the  alleged  expenditure  and  total  toll
\namount collected  did  not  tally  with  each  other.    According  to him, no
\nmaterials have  been  placed  to  show  that  the  expenditure  justified  the
\ncollection of  the  toll.    Mr.Krishnappan  further  contended  that with the
\nintroduction of Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, sufficient provision was made for
\nthe maintenance of the roads and 10 per cent of the  tax  thus  collected  was
\nearmarked for  the Rural Road Development Fund.  Hence, the collection of toll
\nin addition to the Motor Vehicles Tax, was totally unjustified.   The  attempt
\nwas  only  to  augment  revenue  for  all and general purposes and not for the
\nspecific purpose of maintenance of the roads as claimed by the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
                19.  Learned Additional Government Pleader appearing  for  the
\nState and Mr.V.Radhakrishnan appearing for the Municipality contended that the
\nissues  raised  in these writ petitions had already been raised and considered
\nby this Court on earlier occasions and have been held against the petitioners.
\nIt has been repeatedly  held  by  this  Court  that  the  imposition  and  the
\ncollection  of  the  tax was justified and had the required statutory backing.
\nIn the said context, reference was made to the very same judgments  relied  on
\nby the petitioners themselves namely, 1993 Writ L.R., 86.  and 1998 Writ L.R.,
\n789, supra.\n<\/p>\n
                20.   Reference  was  also made to the judgment of the Supreme
\nCourt in AVINDER SINGH v.  STAE OF PUBJAB (1979 (I) S.C.C., 137) dealing  with
\nthe Legislative competence of the levy of tax.\n<\/p>\n
                21.   In  the  context of the exemption granted to the private
\nvehicles plying within the Municipal area, reliance was placed on the judgment
\nof the Supreme Court in SRI KRISHNADAS v.    TOWN  AREA  COMMITTEE  (1990  (3)
\nS.C.C., 645).    In  that  case,  a  contention  was  raised that the levy was
\ndiscriminatory in view of the exemption granted to some of the products and to
\nthose products which were transported by Rail or motor transport, the  Supreme
\nCourt  held  that  it  was  for the Legislature or for the Taxing Authority to
\ndetermine the question of need, the policy to collect  the  fees  or  for  the
\npurpose of taxation and that the Courts cannot review such decision.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  I  have  considered  the  submissions of both sides.  The
\nissue which has been raised in these writ petitions relating to the collection
\nof toll for the year 2000-2001 had  been  considered  by  this  Court  in  the
\ncontext of the previous years at least in two judgments of this Court.  In the
\ncase reported i 1993 Writ L.R., 86, supra, AR.  Lakshmanan,J., as he then was,
\nafter  analysing  the  provisions of the Indian Tolls Act, 1851, held that the
\nlevy of toll on vehicles entering Kodaikanal Township, was in the nature of  a
\ncompensatory tax.    Recovery of expenses already incurred and also for future
\nmaintenance and repairs of the roads did not amount to a  restriction  on  the
\nfreedom  of Trade and Commerce and was not violative of Article 301 and 304(b)
\nof the Constitution of India.  The learned Judge also held that the  levy  was
\nneither disproportionate  nor  arbitrary.    In that case also, the Government
\nOrder expressing their desire  to  levy  toll  in  respect  of  the  roads  in
\nKodaikanal  Town  was questioned as being ultra vires of the provisions of the
\nIndian Tolls Act.  One of the contentions which was raised was that  the  toll
\nbeing  levied  at an exorbitant rate without actually ascertaining the quantum
\nof expenditure either to carry out or to be utilised for repairs,  maintenance
\netc.   and  that the State Government had no power to levy toll for augmenting
\nthe general revenue of the State.  The learned Judge held that  benefits  were
\nprovided  to  the members of the public by repairing and maintaining the roads
\nin the hill area in question.  It was for the benefit of the public in general
\nand the road users.  There was also  no  dispute  that  the  roads  are  being
\nmaintained by  the  State authorities.  Toll was levied by the Government only
\nfor recovering the expenses incurred by it and was also
\nintended for future maintenance of the repairs of the road.   The  petitioners
\nwho  had  benefited  by  using the roads cannot complain that the compensatory
\ncharacter of the toll was lost because of the creation of  the  fund  for  the
\nfuture maintenance and repairs of the roads.\n<\/p>\n
                23.  P.Sathasivam,J.   also had occasion to deal with the same
\nissue in the case reported in 1998 Writ L.R., 789, supra.  The  learned  Judge
\nreferred  to  the  judgement in 1993 Writ L.R., 86 and while agreeing with the
\nviews expressed in the said judgement also held that  the  collection  of  tax
\nunder  the  Motor Vehicles Taxation Act cannot be equated with the fees levied
\nunder the National Highways Rules.  The learned Judge  held  that  though  the
\nMotor  Vehicles Taxation Act, 1974 was an Act to consolidate and amend the law
\nrelating to levy of tax on Motor Vehicles, the collection of  fees  under  the
\nNational  Highways Rules, 1992, framed by the Central Government was collected
\nonly for the services and benefits rendered by the Government in  relation  to
\nthe use of permanent bridges on National Highways.\n<\/p>\n
                24.   Therefore,  the  basic  issue  raised by the petitioners
\nnamely, the right of the Government as well as the local authority to  collect
\nthe toll for the proper maintenance of the road is no more res integra and had
\nbeen found  against the petitioners in the above mentioned two judgments.  All
\nthe issues raised before me had been dealt with in the said judgments.   I  do
\nnot  find  any  reason  to differ from the views expressed by both the learned
\nJudges in the above mentioned judgments.\n<\/p>\n
                25.   The  further  contention  of  learned  counsel  for  the
\npetitioners  that  the amounts collected by the respondents by way of toll was
\nfar in excess of the actual expenditure involved in  the  maintenance  of  the
\nroad cannot  also  be sustained.  In fact, as held in the judgment reported in
\n1993 Writ L.R., 86, it was impossible to judge the compensatory nature of  the
\ntax by  a  meticulous  test  of  the  figures.    Before this Court sufficient
\nmaterials such as statement showing Toll Fund Amount received by the Collector
\nduring the year from 1997-98 to 2000-2001 and details of expenditure  incurred
\nby  Municipality  have been placed by the respondents showing that repairs and
\nmaintenance work have been carried on periodically and that the  said  figures
\nof  expenditure  do justify the imposition of collection of the toll under the
\nimpugned Government Orders.  No contrary  material  has  been  placed  by  the
\npetitioners to disprove the figures.\n<\/p>\n
                26.   The  only other ground which remains to be considered is
\nthe alleged discrimination shown in favour  of  the  private  vehicles  plying
\nwithin the  Municipal area of Kodaikanal Township.  I am inclined to hold that
\nthe differentiation is based on rational criteria.  There can be no comparison
\nwith the private users of the road and the vehicles  which  are  plying  on  a
\ncommercial basis.  It is also needless to emphasise that the lorries and buses
\nwhich  carry  heavy weight compared to private transport vehicles do result in
\ncausing greater damage to the roads.    Further  the  commercial  exploitation
\ninvolved  in the transport vehicles and lorries and the profits earned by them
\nare also reasonable grounds for treating  them  differently.    The  exemption
\ngranted  in  favour of the private vehicles whose user of the roads are lesser
\nand damage caused by them would also  be  lesser,  and  not  being  commercial
\ncannot  be  characterised as discrimination as would violate Article 14 of the
\nConstitution of India.  Therefore, I am unable to sustain any of  the  grounds
\nraised by the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
                27.  In the result, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed.  No
\ncosts.  Connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed as unnecessary.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes.                                                    30.04.2002\nInternet\/Yes.\nsai\/-\n\nTo\n\n1.  The Secretary\nto Government, Highways Department,\nGovernment of Tamil Nadu,\nChennai-9.\n\n2.  The District Collector,'\nDindigul.\n\n3.  The Commissioner,\nKodaikanal Municipality,\nKodaikanal.\nK.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM,J.\n\nOrder in\nW.P.Nos.21278 and 21949 of 2000\nand W.P.M.P.Nos.31861 and\n31862 of 2000<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 30\/04\/2002 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM WRIT PETITION No.21278 of 2000 and WP.No.21949 of 2000 and W.P.M.P.Nos.31861 and 31862 of 2000 Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ Association, represented by its […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172994","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nKodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\"},\"wordCount\":4021,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\",\"name\":\"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002","datePublished":"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002"},"wordCount":4021,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002","name":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners' vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-04-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-02-05T15:21:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kodaikanal-motor-bus-owners-vs-government-of-tamil-nadu-on-30-april-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kodaikanal Motor Bus Owners’ vs Government Of Tamil Nadu on 30 April, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172994","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=172994"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172994\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=172994"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=172994"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=172994"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}