Judgment :- 1. Petitioner challenges the levy of toll from the users of motor vehicles in regard to the use of the Arkakadavu bridge on the Eroor-Edappally road in Ernakulam District. He seeks a declaration that Government has no right to collect toll. There is also an alternate prayer for declaration that any number of entries into the bridge within twenty four hours will be subject only to one toll. 2. Petitioner has filed this original petition as a public spirited citizen, on behalf of himself and others. The bridge in question connects Vennala and Error. It was proposed to be opened on 4-1-1985 when this Original Petition was filed. Toll is proposed to be collected under the Kerala Tolls Act, 1976 (Act 6 of 1977) and the rules made thereunder. Petitioner's complaint is that the toll is illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and unconstitutional, that it is 'highly discriminatory' as toll is not collected in respect of bridges constructed by Government, and that the Kerala Tolls Act and the Rules are violative of Art.19(1)(d) of the Constitution. In any case, it is pointed out that when once toll is paid, it must enure for twentyfour hours. 3. Respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that though the construction of the bridge had been completed on 20-3-1985, it could not be opened for various reasons. The toll was to be levied in accordance with the Kerala Tolls Levy Rules, 1983 after issuing notification under sub-s. 2 of S.3 of the Kerala Tolls Act. Toll is collected only on motor vehicles. Those travelling frequently and regularly over the bridge in motor vehicles have the facility of compounding the toll at reduced rates for periods of not less than one month. The toll is collected to recover the expenses incurred for the construction of the bridge and the collection goes into a separate fund called Bridges and Roads Fund (now called Bridges Fund, after the amendment by Act 34 of 1986). The accumulations in this fund are to be utilised for the construction of new bridges, on which again, toll could be collected, so that the fund takes the shape of a revolving fund. It is expressly stated in the counter affidavit that the toll will be collected only till the expenses incurred by Government for the construction of the bridge, and interest thereon at usual rates, are realised. It is expressly stated in the counter affidavit that the toll will be collected only till the expenses incurred by Government for the construction of the bridge, and interest thereon at usual rates, are realised. The rates themselves have been fixed after considering all aspects. It is also pointed out that the bridge in question had been constructed at a cost of about Rs.40 lakhs and that permission to use the bridge for 24 hours on single toll was likely to create administrative difficulties besides delaying recovery of the cost. The bridge gives an additional facility to the public and the Act or the Rules are not in any manner unconstitutional or void. 4. The Kerala Tolls Act, as amended by Act 34 of 1986, levies toll on every motor vehicle entering a bridge, the cost of construction of which is not less than Rs.25 lakhs, declared open for traffic after July 1, 1983. It is levied at such rate as Government may declare by notification in the gazette. This notification has come in the shape of the Kerala Tolls Levy Rules, 1983, the Schedule to which prescribes the rates of toll for various categories of motor vehicles, with reference to the cost of construction of the bridge. 5. The power of the State Legislature to levy tolls is referable to Entry 59 of List.2 to the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. A toll is a tribute or custom paid for a privilege, generally for passage over, or for using a bridge, road, ferry or railway. The justification for tolls was that the person charged enjoyed a privilege and the amount went towards the construction, improvement or upkeep of these things. Tolls were a common feature of medieval Europe and England. (Vide Hardwar Municipality v. Raghubir Singh (AIR 1966 SC 1502) Tolls and turnpikes are even now common in the United States though out of fashion and abandoned in Europe. Tolls is described in Encyclopaedia Americana as "the fee exacted by those who erect or maintain a bridge for the privilege of passing over the same, a compensation for services especially for transportation, as canal or railway toll". 6. From S.3(2) of the Act and R.3(3) of the Rules, it is clear that the toll is levied only for the purpose of recouping to Government the amount expended upon the bridge, together with interest. 6. From S.3(2) of the Act and R.3(3) of the Rules, it is clear that the toll is levied only for the purpose of recouping to Government the amount expended upon the bridge, together with interest. The toll cannot be equated with a general tax. From its only nature, the levy is for the purpose of compensating the Government for the expenses incurred in the construction of bridges. The challenge to this levy that it is "illegal, arbitrary, ultra vires and unconstitutional", is not clearly delineated in the Original Petition and apart from the use of these cliches, nothing further has been stated. Even at the hearing counsel could not amplify on these aspects. I therefore do not propose to deal with this matter further. 7. The charge of discrimination is again without any substance. The toll may be levied in respect of any bridge constructed at a cost of over Rs.25 lakhs and declared open for traffic after 1-7-1983. Only the small bridges are left out of its purview. The challenge is that Government has been conferred with an arbitrary power to decide which bridge is to be subjected to the toll and for what period. The Act is an enabling piece of legislation. It enables Government to recoup its expenses by levying the toll. The amount so collected goes into the Bridges Fund to be utilised for construction of new bridges. There are sufficient guidelines in the Act as to the purpose for which the toll is to be collected and for what period. Detailed provisions are there in the Act and the Rules for returns regarding the collections from the bridge. The need of the Government to compensate itself for the expenses incurred in the construction of the bridge is sufficient guidance to make the power valid. The court has to presume that Government will exercise the powers for levy of toll for the purpose for which it is conferred and not arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner. It has to be noted further that the alleged discrimination is between bridges and not between users of the bridge. In fact the toll is levied on every motor vehicle entering the bridge, and if no toll is levied on any particular bridge for any reason, the benefit of that also goes to every motor vehicle entering that bridge. 8. It has to be noted further that the alleged discrimination is between bridges and not between users of the bridge. In fact the toll is levied on every motor vehicle entering the bridge, and if no toll is levied on any particular bridge for any reason, the benefit of that also goes to every motor vehicle entering that bridge. 8. It is contended that the levy violates Art.19(1)(d) of the Constitution impeding the right to move freely throughout the territory of India. I have not been able to understand how the imposition of a toll on motor vehicles for entering into a bridge newly constructed curtails the freedom of movement. First, it has to be remembered that there is no bar to the entry of men or animals or even of vehicles. Only the entry of motor vehicles is subjected to the levy of toll. Secondly, even motor vehicles are not barred from entry, the entry is only made subject to payment of toll. There is thus no impediment at all to free movement within the country. 9. Even assuming that there is any restriction on the freedom of movement, I am of the opinion that the restriction in reasonable and saved from challenge by Art.19(5). It was held in Automobile Transport (Rajasthan) Limited v. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1962 SC 1406) that compensatory taxes were reasonable restrictions in the public interest for the purpose of Clause (b) of Art.304 of the Constitution. The view taken by the Supreme Court as regards the reasonableness of the restrictions and their being in the public interest should equally apply in construing the same expression in clause (5) of Art.19. (See also Krishnan v. State of Tamil Nadu (AIR 1973 SC 583), The Patna High Court upheld the levy of toll under the (Indian) Tolls Act, 1851 (Act 8 of 1851) against challenge under Art.19(1)(d) in Maheswari Singh v. State of Bihar (AIR 1966 Patna 462). Respectfully following these decisions, I overrule the contention of the petitioner of violation of Art.19(1)(d). 10. Lastly, it is contended that payment of toll once made should enure for 24 hours. This is a matter of policy for Government. No material has been placed before me to show that levy acts oppressively. On the other band, the opening of the bridge adds to the benefit of the travelling public, saving time, distance, fuel and running costs. Lastly, it is contended that payment of toll once made should enure for 24 hours. This is a matter of policy for Government. No material has been placed before me to show that levy acts oppressively. On the other band, the opening of the bridge adds to the benefit of the travelling public, saving time, distance, fuel and running costs. In any case, the provision for payment at compounded rates, which is eminently reasonable is sufficient to offset and alleviate any hardship. 11. No other points were argued. 12. The Original Petition fails and is dismissed. 13. It was represented that the bridge in question has rot been declared open to traffic because of the pendency of this Original Petition. Now that this petition stands dismissed, let me hope the authorities will take necessary steps to open the bridge for traffic without any further delay. In the guise of challenging the levy of toll the petitioner has done positive disservice to the community by delaying the opening of the bridge by over fifteen months. There will be no order as to costs.