Judgment :- K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J. The petitioner has come up with this original petition echoing a public grievance. He challenges Ext. P1 notification for collection of toll from vehicles passing through Pandalam Bridge on M.C. Road, from 1.1.1997 to 31.12.1997, as it, is violative of the provisions of the Kerala Tolls Act, 1977. The target amount is Rs. 17,10,464/- for the year 1997. The petitioner submits that upto 31.12.1996, since the construction of the bridge in 1989, an amount of Rs. 1.18,17,000/- had been collected. This is more than the cost amount and the interest. Moreover, the respondents cannot go on collecting the toll indefinitely, as is done now. S.3 of the Kerala Tolls Act enables Government to levy toll on every motor vehicle entering the bridge, as it is constructed wholly or partly on the expenses of the Government and is open for traffic after 1st July, 1983. Admittedly, the Panda]am bridge is one which became opened for traffic after July, 1983. Therefore, the Government can levy toll from {he motor vehicles entering the bridge. Collection of toll is regulated by sub-s.2 of S.3 which provides as follows: "The toll shall be levied at such rate and for such period as the. Government may, by notification in the Gazette, declare to be necessary For the recovery of the amounts expended upon such bridge by the Government, or such portion mere of as may be decided by the Government, together with interest at such rate as they may fix." Thus, before collecting the toll, there shall be a notification issued by the Government fixing time limit and also the amounts to the collected. The amount so fixed in the notification need not be the whole amount and interest expended by Government. It can also a portion thereof. So, the notification shall contain the amount to be 'collected, as well as the period, during which it shall be collected. The petitioner submits that no notification had been issued by the Government based on sub s.2 of S.3 providing period for which toll is to be collected or the quantum of the amount to be collected and the total amount towards the expenses and interest incurred by Government. Therefore, Ext. P1 is ultra vires of S.3(2) of the said Act. 2. Therefore, Ext. P1 is ultra vires of S.3(2) of the said Act. 2. It is also submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the Government had already collected, during the last several years since 1989, more amount man what had been expended by Government for construction of the bridge and the interest thereon at 9%. Therefore, no further collection is permissible in terms of S.3(2). 3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2. It is stated that the total expenditure incurred by Government for construction of the said bridge was Rs. 65,40,013/-. The final bill has not been laid so far, to the contractor. The final bill amount will come to about Rs. 5 lakhs. Therefore, the total cost is estimated at Rs. 70 lakhs. The interest to be charged is also estimated at 9%. It comes to Rs. 55,41,081/-. Thus, the net amount expended by Government towards the cost of bridge including interest is Rs. 1,25,41,081/-. The Government submits that, that is the amount to be realised by Government and that "the collection of the toll will have to be continued till the full realisation is achieved". It is also submitted in para 7 of the counter affidavit mat an amount of Rs. 1,16,64,170/- had been collected as toll upto 15.11.1996 and further amount of Rs. 2,35,005/- has to be remitted by the contractor for the period from 16.11.1996 to 31.12.1996. As such the total toll collection as on 31.12.1996 comes to Rs. 1,18,99,175/-. Thus, even going by the averment in the counter affidavit of the respondents themselves, the cost of construction of the bridge with interest had almost been collected by 31.12.1996. The balance to be collected is only around Rs. 6.5 lakhs. It is to be noted that the tender notified as per Ext. P1 is for Rs. 17,10,464/-. Therefore, it is in excess of the permissible limit contained in S.3(2), even if the Government intended to collect the total amount. (Of course, the Government is entitled to collect full amount as per S.3 of the act). So, the petitioner is well justified in challenging Ext. P1. Even going by the counter affidavit, "the collection of the toll will have to be continued, till the full realisation is achieved". To achieve that object, only Rs. 6.5 lakhs alone need be collected. (Of course, the Government is entitled to collect full amount as per S.3 of the act). So, the petitioner is well justified in challenging Ext. P1. Even going by the counter affidavit, "the collection of the toll will have to be continued, till the full realisation is achieved". To achieve that object, only Rs. 6.5 lakhs alone need be collected. Therefore, the Government can collect only that much amount at the maximum. 4. As there was stay of Ext. P1, there is no collection at present. The Government, if proceed to collect, till they achieve the full cost as mentioned above, can proceed with a tender only after fixing the period of collection to levy the said Rs. 6.5 lakhs. The original petition is allowed with that option to Government.