Sk Ajarat Ali vs. State Of West Bengal And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, Sk. Ajarat Ali, filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the collection of toll by Murshidabad Zilla Parishad at Bahramghat to Bagdabra via Chandpur. The petitioner alleged that the toll collection contract, initially awarded for one year, was being continued beyond its expiry. Furthermore, the petitioner contended that permission was granted for trucks with more than 10 wheels, which was not part of the initial contract, without a fresh tender. The respondents, including the State and the toll collection authority (respondent nos. 3 to 4), submitted that a corrigendum notice issued on July 24, 2020, prior to the auction, clearly stated the option of yearly renewal by advance payment at an increased rate of 10% per year, up to a maximum of three years. The work order was issued on August 28, 2020, commencing September 1, 2020, and was set to expire on August 31, 2023. A policy decision was also taken to allow cargo through the toll gate with more than ten wheels due to the absence of alternative routes, with an enhanced lease value of Rs. 1,90,00,000/- plus GST for the second year.

Held

The Court held that no case for interference in the present Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was required. The primary issue revolved around the validity of the toll collection and the modification of terms. The Court considered the respondents' submission that a corrigendum notice dated July 24, 2020, issued before the auction, explicitly provided for a yearly renewal option with a 10% increase in advance payment, up to a maximum of three years. This clause explained the continuation of the contract and its expiry date of August 31, 2023. Regarding the permission for trucks with more than 10 wheels, the Court noted that this was a policy decision taken due to the absence of alternative routes, accompanied by a revision and fixation of a higher rate, as evidenced by a communication dated February 7, 2022, which also mentioned an enhanced lease value. The Court found that the petitioner's reliance on the order in WPA 200 of 2021 was misplaced, as that order reflected the State's position at the time and did not account for the renewal option with enhancement available to the Zilla Parishad. Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not made out a case for interference.

Key Issues

1. Whether the continued collection of toll by Murshidabad Zilla Parishad beyond the initial one-year contract period, and the subsequent permission for trucks with more than 10 wheels without a fresh tender, are legally valid? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning contract law and administrative procedure). Petitioner's Arguments: - The initial contract period has expired, yet toll collection is ongoing. - Permission for trucks with more than 10 wheels was granted without a fresh tender, violating established procedure. - Relied on an order in WPA 200 of 2021 dated July 23, 2021, where the State's stand was that the contract would expire on August 31, 2021. Respondents' (State and Respondent Nos. 3 to 4) Arguments: - A corrigendum notice issued on July 24, 2020, before the auction, allowed for yearly renewal with a 10% increase, making the contract valid until August 31, 2023. - The policy decision to allow more than ten-wheeled trucks was taken due to the lack of alternative routes and involved fixing a higher rate. - The order in WPA 200 of 2021 was based on the State's stand and not the Zilla Parishad's representation, and the option for renewal with enhancement existed, rendering the petitioner's reliance on it invalid.