Manjula Chellur, C.J.
Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Petitioner is before this Court seeking the following reliefs:
“a) issue a writ of certiorari, such other order or direction setting aside Ext.P4 notification to the extent to which it fixes and authorizes the 4th respondent to collect user fee for the National Highway No.47 starting from Edappally to Karayamparambu Junction of Angamaly; to the extent to which it refused to give discounted Monthly Pass to local users within 20 to 30 kilometers from Paliyekkara Toll Plaza on the southern side and to extent to which it permits revision of user fees every year.
b) Declare that the respondents have no right or authority to collect User Fee for the National Highway No.47 starting from Edappaly to Karayamparambu Junction of Angamaly.
c) issue a writ of mandamus, such other order or direction to the respondents to refix the User Fee excluding the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management of the Edappally to Angamaly Section of National Highway and interest on capital invested, reasonable return and the volume of traffic with respect to the same.
d) Declare that the respondents have no right or authority to collect User Fee as per Ext.P4 Notification without the completion of the entire work under the BOT Agreement with the 4th respondent. ”
2. Petitioner places reliance on Ext.P4 Notification in support of his contention, which is under challenge in this writ petition. According to him, the user fee for the National Highway No.47 starting from Edappally to Karayamparambu Junction at Angamaly is without any right or authority. He also seeks other consequential reliefs.
3. The entire claim is based on the fact that Edappally to Angamaly Section of National Highway was at the expenditure of Union of India. Therefore, 4th respondent has no right to collect user fee for the said road. As a matter of fact, 4th respondent herein approached learned Single Judge challenging the restriction imposed by State Government regarding enhanced user fee to be collected which was made by notification by Union of India. Learned Single Judge, after hearing all the parties concerned, was of the opinion, by virtue of agreement between the parties, 4th respondent herein was entitled to collect enhanced user fee and accordingly the Writ Petition was allowed.
4. Of course, the petitioner is an association who has nothing to do with the agreement. But, the fact remains, the agreement relied upon by the 4th respondent forms foundation or is the source from which the rights of parties are to be decided. Based on such agreement, the enhanced user fee was approved. 4th respondent is allowed to collect enhanced user fee even for the areas starting from Edappally to Karayamparambu Junction at Angamaly, including initial user fee he has to collect at the time of entering into agreement between parties, would be taken into consideration, which according to Standing Counsel for the National Highway, was taken into consideration and forms part of the agreement. He also brings to our notice Ext.P4 notification. As per this Notification 4th respondent is allowed to improve, operate and maintain section from 316.700 Kms to 342.00 Thrissur-Angamaly-Edappally Section of National Highway No.47.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for National Highway authorities submits, after collecting user fee by 4th respondent concessioner he has to pay back to Union of India more than 300 Crores, therefore, he was allowed to collect the user fee for this extent of road as well. Even otherwise, Ext.P4 notification is dated 20.06.2011 and members of petitioner's association being situated at Thrissur District Headquarters ought to have known said date. They have come up with this challenge nearly after three years in a Public Interest Litigation.
In that view of the matter, for the reasons stated above, the Writ Petition is not sustainable and accordingly dismissed.
Manjula Chellur, Chief Justice.
P.R. Ramachandra Menon, Judge.
ttb/05/06