Madras High Court
Sp.S.Ilangoo vs The Union Of India on 12 February, 2025
Author: G.R.Swaminathan
Bench: G.R.Swaminathan
W.A.(MD)No.476 of 2020
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 12.02.2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
W.A(MD)No.476 of 2020
SP.S.Ilangoo ... Appellant /
Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Union of India,
Represented by its Secretary,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
5th Floor, Transport Bhawan,
1, SansadMarg, Gokul Nagar,
SansadMarg Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chairman,
National Highways Authority of India,
G5 and 6, Sector 10,
Dwaraka, New Delhi – 110 075.
3.The Project Director, PIU,
National Highways Authority of India,
SRO TOWER, 3rd Floor,
D P-34, SP Industrial Estate,
Guindy, Chennai – 600 032.
4.M/s.ArunachalaImpex Private Limited,
Represented by its Authorized Representative,
Shenbagampettai Toll Plaza,
Sivagangai District. ... Respondents /
Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/8
W.A.(MD)No.476 of 2020
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside
the order dated 29.05.2020 made in W.P(MD)No.20922 of 2017.
For Appellant : Mr. S.I.Muthiah
For Respondents : Mr.S.Jeyasingh
for R.1 & R.2
Mr.G.Rajagopalan
Senior Counsel
Assisted by
Mr.C.Arul Vadivel @ Sekar for R.3
R.4 - Refused
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.)
The case on hand pertains to location of a toll plaza. Ironically
both the writ petitioner as well as NHAI feel aggrieved by the order
passed by the learned single Judge. The writ petitioner sought
dismantling / removal of Shenbagampettai toll plaza in Sivagangai
District in NH36. He filed W.P(MD)No.20922 of 2017 questioning the
notification issued by the Union of India vide S.O.No.1807 (E) dated
07.06.2017. The case projected by the writ petitioner is that there is
another toll plaza at Lembalakudi situated at a distance of 23 kms from
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Shenbagampettai toll plaza. The learned single Judge agreed with the
said contention. But then, by the impugned order, the learned single
Judge directed shifting of Lembalakudi toll plaza and retention of the toll
plaza at Shenbagampettai. Since the writ petitioner did not get the relief
sought for by him, he has filed W.A(MD)No.476 of 2020. Since
Lembalakudi toll plaza had been ordered to be dismantled, NHAI has
filed W.A(MD)No.468 of 2020. Thus both the parties feel aggrieved by
the order passed by the learned single Judge.
2.It is true that Shenbagampettai toll plaza is situated in what was
known as NH226 whereas Lembalakudi toll plaza situated in NH210.
But the fact remains that the Ministry of Road Transport / Highways
redrew and renumbered the existing National Highways in 2020 itself.
3.NH210 pertains to the stretch from Trichy to Ramanathapuram.
NH226 pertains to the stretch from Thanjavur to Manamadurai. There
was overlapping of the stretches. The renumbered and redrawn NH36
pertains to the stretch from Vikravandi to Manamadurai. As a result of
such redrawing and renumbering, both Lembalakudi toll plaza as well as
Shenbagampettai toll plaza fell in NH36.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
4.The learned Standing Counsel for NHAI did not dispute that this
redrawing and renumbering had taken place in 2010 itself. The toll plaza
at Lembalakudi was installed only in the year 2011 and the toll plaza at
Shenbagampettai was installed only in the year 2017. As per Rule 8(2)
of the National Highway (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules,
2008, a toll plaza of the same section of National Highway and in the
same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 kms. It is
undisputed that Shenbagampettai toll plaza is located within 23 kms from
Lembalakudi toll plaza. That is why the learned Judge had given a
categorical finding in the impugned order that there is a violation of Rule
8(2). The learned single Judge discussed the factual aspects in the
following terms:
“41. Therefore it become very clear that, the
stretch between Pudukkottai and Thirumayam does not
fall either under Old NH 210 any more or under New
NH 336 or New NH 536 after 05.03.2010 notification,
instead, it does fall under Old NH 226, i.e., New NH 36.
...
44. Part of the NH 36, i.e., Thanjavur-
Manamadurai or the stretch of Thanjavur-Manamadurai
in NH 36, since has been divided into two sections, i.e.,
between Thanjavur and Pudukkottai and Pudukkottai
and Manamadurai, the toll plaza fixed at Pazhaya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kandarvakottai is taking care of the stretch of NH 36
starting from Thanjavur point up to Pudukkottai.
Suppose the respondents want to establish another toll
plaza for the remaining stretch of NH 36 up to
Manamadurai, they can very well have a toll plaza
anywhere in the remaining stretch of NH 36 ofcourse
following the rule 8(2). That means, the toll plaza has to
be fixed beyond 60 kilometres from the Pazhaya
Kandarvakottai toll plaza in NH 36 for the collection of
toll fee for the remaining stretch of NH 36 up to
Manamadurai.
45. Here in the case in hand, they fixed
Shenbagampettai as the point for establishment of
another toll plaza for the purpose of NH 36. The toll
plaza at Pazhaya Kandarvakottai according to the
respondents is fixed at Kilometre 16 and the
Shenbagampettai toll plaza is fixed at Kilometre 92 at
NH 36, there is 60 kilometre distance available in
between. Assuming that, if the Thanjavur-Pudukkottai
sector is one section of the NH 36 and Pudukkottai-
Manamadurai sector is another section of the NH 36, we
cannot term the Shenbagampettai toll plaza situated at
Kilometre 92 as the additional or second toll booth in
the same section of Highway and therefore technically
the Shenbagampettai toll plaza cannot be construed as a
toll plaza established in violation of rule 8(2)
calculating from the toll plaza at Pazhaya
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Kandarvakottai as both are located at NH 36.”
Having come to such a categorical decision, the learned Judge ought to
have allowed the writ petition straightaway.
5.It is entirely for NHAI to decide as to where a toll plaza has to
come up. Of course, their decision will have to conform to the statutory
provisions.
6.It is not in dispute that Lembalakudi toll plaza was located earlier
in point of time. Therefore, the subsequent location of Shenbagampettai
toll plaza falls foul of law and therefore, the relief sought for has to be
granted. The order impugned in the writ petition is set aside. The writ
petition is allowed as prayed for.
7.This Writ Appeal is allowed accordingly. No costs.
[G.R.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.]
12.02.2025
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/ No
MGA
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.The Secretary,
Union of India,
Ministry of Road Transport and Highways,
5th Floor, Transport Bhawan,
1, SansadMarg, Gokul Nagar,
SansadMarg Road,
New Delhi – 110 001.
2.The Chairman,
National Highways Authority of India,
G5 and 6, Sector 10,
Dwaraka,
New Delhi – 110 075.
3.The Project Director, PIU,
National Highways Authority of India,
SRO TOWER, 3rd Floor,
D P-34, SP Industrial Estate,
Guindy,
Chennai – 600 032.
4.The Authorized Representative,
M/s.ArunachalaImpex Private Limited,
Shenbagampettai Toll Plaza,
Sivagangai District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
G.R.SWAMINATHAN,J.
AND
M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.
MGA
12.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
