B. R. GAVAI, J.:- Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith by consent. 2. The petitioner by present petition, challenges the tender process initiated by the Respondent Corporation for inviting a combined offer for toll collection at five toll stations (including Routine Maintenance) as under: (a) At four toll stations on Aurangabad-Jalna-Watur-Partur-Kolha-Parbhani-Nanded in MSH No.6. (i) Near Km.1l7/400 (Watur Phata) (ii) Near Km. 169/00 (Kolha) (iii) Near Km. 207/400 (Dhamoda) (iv) Near Km. 243/00 (Ughadi) and (b) At Ambesawangi toll station at Km. 531/ 00 on Thane-Nagar-Beed-Parali-Nanded Road. 3. This Court on 15/9/2008 while' issuing notice, though had permitted the respondent Corporation to consider bids if received, had directed that no work order would be allotted to any bidders without further orders from this Court. When the matter was heard by us on 3/3/2009, in order to verify the bonafides of the petitioner, we had asked the petitioner as to what amount it was willing to offer as an upfront price in case a separate notice was published for inviting tenders for the collection of toll at Ambesawangi station on Thane-Nagar-Beed-Parali-Nanded Road. The learned Advocate for petitioner, on instructions had made statement that the petitioner would be offering the minimum price of Rs.Six Crores Eighty Two Lakhs. Having noticed that the interim order was operating in the matter and though permitted by this Court, the respondent-Corporation had not opened the tenders, we had directed the respondent no.2-Corporation to open the bids and place on record the details regarding the bids. 4. Accordingly, when the matter was heard on 19/3/09, the learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation has informed us that the highest bid received by it was of Rs.Thirteen Crores Five Thousand for all the aforesaid five toll stations. 5. Finding that the petitioner had established its bonafides, we have heard the matter on merits. 6. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicle Tax Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act for the sake of brevity), it is not permissible for the respondents to allot the composite contract for two different single entities as contemplated under the aforesaid provisions. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the road between Mumbai-Thane- Nagar- Beed- Parali - Nanded- Bhokar Road upto State border, major State Highway No.2 including bridges on the said section, was a different single entity for which a separate Notification was issued by the State Government authorising collection of toll at Ambesawangi centre. It is further submitted that section of road between Aurangabad-Jalna-Watur-Partur-Kolha-Parbhani-Nanded Major State Highway No.6 (including bridges on the said section)was different single entity, for which a separate Notification was issued authorising toll collection at 4 stations situated at Watora Phata, Kolha Dhamoda and Ughadi. It is submitted that the Capital Outlay for the section between Thane to Bhokar road which was a different single entity and for the sections between Aurangabad to Nanded, which was a different single entity, was totally different. It is therefore, submitted that combining said work of collection of tolls on these two single entities would not be permissible in law. It is further submitted that the tenders for these two single entities were combined together so as to restrict the competition. It is submitted that if the two works were combined, the qualified bidders would be less, thereby reducing the number of bidders. It is submitted that if two separate notices inviting tenders would have been published, the number of competitors would have been much more, as a result of which the bids for a larger amount would have been received for these two single entities. The petitioner himself has undertaken to offer his bid for toll centre at Ambesawangi on Thane Bhokar road for a minimum amount of Rs.Six Crores Eighty Two Lakhs. It is the contention of the petitioner that even according to the estimates of the respondent corporation, the collection of Ambesawangi is only 30%. It is, therefore, submitted that a bid for a section between Aurangabad-Nanded should be atleast twice the Ambesawangi centre toll which according to estimates would have 70% of the total collection. It is the contention of the petitioner that the bid for this entity would be around Rs.14 Crores and as such, the total collection would be more than Rs.20 Crores, whereas, the highest offer that was received for all five toll stations, is only of Rs.13 Crores. It is the contention of the petitioner that the bid for this entity would be around Rs.14 Crores and as such, the total collection would be more than Rs.20 Crores, whereas, the highest offer that was received for all five toll stations, is only of Rs.13 Crores. It is further submitted that in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, the recovery of toll has to be stopped once the amount of Capital Outlay was recovered by the State. It is submitted that due to combining of the two single entities, the citizens using one of the entities would be required to pay for longer time, even after the reimbursement of the capital outlays of the said entity. 7. Shri. Dighe, learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent no.5 which is an Association of the owners using motor vehicles at Latur, also supports the contention of the petitioner. He submits that the Capital Outlay for which the toll is being collected at Ambasawangi centre, is much less as compared to the Capital Outlay for which the collection would be on Aurangabad-Nanded section and due to this combined contract, the members of the said Association would have to pay the toll at Ambesawangi even after the amount •of Capital Outlay is recovered in so far as the single entity for which the collection would be made at Ambesawangi. 8. Shri. Bhandari, learned counsel who appears on behalf of respondent no.3 against whom allegations have been made that the combined tender has been made to suit the said respondent, denies the said allegation. However, he also supports the case of the petitioner that combined tender for collection of toll of two single entities-is not permissible. The learned counsel on instructions of his client also makes a statement that in the event a separate tender is invited for collection of toll at Ambesawangi, his client was willing to offer minimum price of Rs.6.90 Crores. 9. Shri. Adwant, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-Corporation, submits that the work of collection of toll is being done by the Corporation in consultation with the State Government. He submits that it is permissible for the Corporation to issue combined tender for various toll stations in different single entitilts. In any case, he submits that this has been done with prior approval of State Government. He submits that it is permissible for the Corporation to issue combined tender for various toll stations in different single entitilts. In any case, he submits that this has been done with prior approval of State Government. The learned counsel further submits that the Corporation has a discretion in view of provisions of Section 20 of the Act, to issue a combined tender notice. 10. Shri. Adwant, learned counsel for respondent-corporation submits that the scope of interference in tender matters is very limited. He submits that unless act of the respondent is found to be illegal, arbitrary, unfair or malafide, it is not permissible for this Court to interfere in its jurisdiction under Article 226. He further submits that the combined tenders were published in order to ensure that only serious competitors can submit their offers and to keep away the uninterested persons. He further submits that this has been done in order to prevent a cartel being formed. The learned counsel relies on judgments of Apex Court in the cases of – (1) Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India reported in (1994)6 S.C.C. 651 . (2) AIR India Ltd. Vs. Cochin International Airport Ltd. and others reported in (2000)2 S.C.C. 617 . (3) Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa and others. (4) Mis. B.S.N. Joshi and Sons Ltd. Vs. Nair Coal Services Ltd. and others reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 437 . 11. For appreciating rival submissions of the parties, it would be necessary to refer to the provisions of Section 20 of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Act, 1958 : "20. Bar to levy tolls. etc. on motor vehicles: (1) Except as provided in, the Bombay Ferries and Inland Vessels Act, 1868, or that Act as applied to the Kutch area of the State of Bombay or the Hyderabad Ferries Act, or the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878, (and subject to the provisions of sub-sections 1(A), 1(B), (1C) and 1(D) on and after commencement of this Act, no tolls shall be levied and collected- (a) on any vehicle, animal or person by the State Government or by any local board. (b) on any motor vehicle, by any other local authority. (b) on any motor vehicle, by any other local authority. (I-A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), but subject to the provisions of sub-sections (1-B) (1-C) and (1-D), the State Government may levy and collect tolls on motor vehicles and trailers drawn by such vehicles (i) passing over any bridge or through any tunnel including an approach road thereto or any section of road or any, by-pass described hereunder in clauses (a) and (b), or (ii) passing over or through any portion or a part of any of such bridges or tunnels including the approach roads thereto or sections of roads of by-passes, the cluster of which is situated in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government under the said clause (a) as one single entity, including the motor vehicles and trailers drawn by such vehicles benefiting directly or indirectly by the augmentation of the facilities in the use of such bridges, tunnels or approach roads thereto or any sections of roads or any by-passes, although while enjoying benefit of such augmentation of facilities, such vehicles may not be required to pass over or through the entire cluster of such single entity- (a) toll may be levied and collected in respect of a bridge or tunnel including an approach road thereto or any section or road or any by-pass or a cluster of such bridges or tunnels including approach roads thereto or section of roads or by-passes situated in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette, as one single entity, which is newly constructed, reconstructed, improved or repaired as the case may be, after the commencement of the Bombay Motor Vehicles Tax (Amendment) Act, 1987, at the expense of the State Government or at the expense of any person or body or association of individuals whether incorporated or not at the expense of both, that is to say, the State Government and any such person or body or association (or by private entrepreneur or an agent appointed by the State Government or the State Public Enterprise authorised by the State Government in this behalf, by entering into an agreement with such entrepreneur or agent under the Build, Operate and Transfer (B.O.T.) Projects) and the total capital outlay of which construction, reconstruction, improvement or repairs, as the case may be, is not less than ten lakhs of rupees; or (b) in respect of a bridge or tunnel including approach road thereto or section of road or by-pass which, in the opinion of the State Government, is of special service to the public. Explanation : For the purposes of this section, the expression "capital outlay" shall include the anticipated cost of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening, structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and interest on such outlay at such rates as the State Government may fix until the full amount of such outlay is recovered] : Provided that, not mere than the capital outlay and expenses of collection of toll shall be collected under this Section. [(A)] The toll levied under sub-section (I-A) shall be levied at such rate and for such period as the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare]. [(B) The State Government shall, while determining the rate of toll and the period for which such toll shall be levied, have regard to the total capital outlay, the likely collection of toll, the expenses of collection of toll, and the terms and conditions of the agreement, if any, entered into with the private person, body or association of persons (incorporated or not), or agent or entrepreneur by the Government or, as the case may be, the State Public Enterprise, relating to the period of collection and retention of the amount of toll by such person, body, agent or entrepreneur, stipulated in the agreement, including grant of reasonable reward in cash or in any other form as an incentive for the early completion of the project, than the period for completion stipulated in the agreement: Provided that, the person or body or association of individuals (whether incorporated or not) or the private entrepreneur or agent with whom the Government or the State Public Enterprise has entered into an agreement under the B.O.T. Project or otherwise, for the construction, re-construction, improvement or repairs, etc. or any road, by-pass, bridge, tunnel, R.O.B., R.D.B., including any approach road thereto or any by-pass, etc. as provided in sub-section (I-A), shall be deemed to be the agent entitled to collect and retain the whole or part of the amount of such toll for the services and benefits rendered by such person, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, having regard to the provisions of clause (B)]. as provided in sub-section (I-A), shall be deemed to be the agent entitled to collect and retain the whole or part of the amount of such toll for the services and benefits rendered by such person, as the State Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, having regard to the provisions of clause (B)]. (l-C) The State Government may itself or through its agent collect the toll levied under sub-section (I-B) and where such collection is 'made through agent, (or his sub-agents) shall be deemed to be persons empowered to collect tolls under this Act: (I-D) Where any additional bridge or tunnel, being the bridge or tunnel on or below the same stream, river or creek or road or rail-track including any approach road thereto is constructed as augmentation of the facility of the use of the existing bridge, tunnel or road, as the case may be, then the network of such bridges or tunnels including approach roads thereto shall be deemed to be one single entity for the purpose of levy of toll, so however, that not more than the capital outlay of such additional bridge or tunnel including any approach road thereto and the expenses of collection of toll shall be recovered; [having regard to the provisions made in clause (B) of sub-section (IB)]. [(I-E) The State Government may be a notification in the Official Gazette in the public interest, exempt any vehicle or class of vehicles from levy of toll under this section]. " 12. It is not in dispute that the power to levy toll on the motor vehicles for which the notice inviting the tenders, has been issued, flows from Section 20 of the said Act. It will therefore be necessary to refer to the Legislative history pertaining to the various amendments to Section 20 of the said Act. Sub-Section 1 of Section 20 provides practically complete bar against levy and collection of toll on any vehicle, animal or person by the State Government or by any local board and on any motor vehicle by any other local authority except in the manner provided under the Bombay Ferries and Inland Vessels Act, 1868 or that Act as applied to the Kutch area of the State of Bombay, or the Hyderabad Ferries Act, or the Northern India Ferries Act, 1878. 13. 13. It is seen that in so far as the State Government is concerned, there was an express bar to levy the toll since inception of the Act i.e. 1/4/1958. To overcome this difficulty, by Maharashtra Act No.43 of 1969, a proviso was enacted to the said Section thereby giving power to the State Government to levy and collect tolls on motor vehicles which were to pass over any bridge constructed, reconstructed or repaired after commencement of the Maharashtra Act, 1969. The said power could be exercised only in respect of any bridge for which total capital cost incurred was not less than Rs.I0 Lakhs or a bridge, which in the opinion of the State Government was of special service to the public. Another Amendment to the said Act was brought in effect by Maharashtra Act No.14/74 so as to empower the State to levy toll in respect of tunnel in addition to bridge, which also had to be one in respect of which the capital costs incurred was not less than Rs.10 Lakhs or it was to be a tunnel, which in the opinion of the State Government was of special service to the public. By said Amendment, the rate at which and the period during which the State Government would recover the toll was to be fixed by the State Government itself 14. The Petition came to be filed before the Principal seat of this Court being Writ Petition No.1401/1982 challenging the continuation of recovery of the toll charges which were collected at what is generally known as Thana Creek Bridge. The original Notification levying the toll was issued by the State Government on 13/1/1972 and by subsequent Notification dated 26/4/1982 the rates for toll were increased. Contending that since the State Government had already recovered the capital costs, the further levy of toll was not permissible in law, petitions came to be filed before the Court. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bungalow Plot Owners (Sector 8) Association and others Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1983 Born. 448 allowed the petition. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 8 thus: "8. ..................... There are thus expressly enacted two limitations on the powers of the Government to levy and collect toll in respect of a bridge or a tunnel. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 1983 Born. 448 allowed the petition. The Division Bench observed in paragraph 8 thus: "8. ..................... There are thus expressly enacted two limitations on the powers of the Government to levy and collect toll in respect of a bridge or a tunnel. Firstly, the bridge or the tunnel must have been constructed, reconstructed or repaired after the coming in to force of the Amending Act, and the second and the more important limitation and which is relevant for the purpose of the present decision is that the recovery cannot be in excess of the capital cost of construction, reconstruction or repairs of a bridge or a tunnel plus the expenses of collection of toll. One more significant feature of the proviso is that the capital cost permitted to be recovered by way of levy of toll is not merely the capital cost of a bridge or a tunnel but the capital cost of the approach road to a bridge or a tunnel is also allowed to be recovered." However, it was sought to be contended on behalf of the State Government that continuation to recovery was justified since project has not yet been completed. It was contended that the Turbhe Panvel Road had to be widened to four lanes in place of 2 and that street lighting on Thana Creek bridge has to be done up to Kalamboli junction and that some more capital repairs had to be made to the bridge. Negating these arguments, the Division Bench observed thus in paragraph 16 : "16. The limited question, which we really need to go into in the instant case, is whether having regard to these figures the State Government has recovered the capital cost incurred or not and secondly, whether the claim of the State Government that it is entitled to recover not only the capital cost but also such cost as may be incurred in future having regard to the proviso to S.20(1) of the Act. Now a bare look at the proviso would show that when the legislature has used the words "capital cost incurred" it is obvious that the legislature contemplated that before taking recourse to the power which is given to the State Government under the proviso, the State Government is in a position to positively determine what is the capital cost of the bridge and approach road thereto because when the State Government issues a notification under the proviso to sub-sec.(1) of S.20, the exercise of the power to recover the toll is circumscribed by the latter part of the proviso which expressly puts a limit on the total amount to be recovered. The State Government is not authorised to recover anything more than the capital cost of construction, reconstruction or repairs of the bridge or the tunnel and the expenditure on collection of toll." The Division Bench further observed thus: "If the very purpose of the proviso is to make the machinery and the power available to allow the State Government to reimburse itself in respect of the capital cost incurred on a bridge or a tunnel and any approach road thereto, then it is obvious to us that the capital cost means the actual expenditure incurred as on the date on which the power is so exercised." It can further be seen that since the Division Bench while interpreting the expression "Capital costs incurred" held that what was permissible for the State Government was levy of toll for actual expenditure incurred on the construction of bridge or tunnel, Section 20 came to be again amended by Act 15/87. From the Statement, Objects and Reasons of the said Act, it would be clear that it was considered expedient to amend Section 20 of the Act so as to suitably empower the State Government to levy toll from time to time, to the extent of capital outlay of any bridge, tunnel or approach road thereto or section of now road or by-pass etc. It was also felt expedient to define the expression "Capital Outlay" appropriately so that it would enable the State Government to recover not only the costs of construction of bridge or tunnel or approach roads thereto but also cost of section of new road or by-pass which is constructed, reconstructed, improved or repaired and shall include the anticipated costs of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening, structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and also interest on the capital outlay. By the said Amendment, it was also provided to empower State Government to collect toll either by itself or through its authorised agents. By another Amendment which was effected by Act 29/91, a provision was made so as to enable it to recover the expenditure incurred on the said work which was carried out at the expenses of the State Government or any other person or enterpreneur or at the expense of both. This was obviously done so as to permit participation of the private party in development of bridges, roads and tunnels. By another Amendment, which was effected by Act 7/2000 specific powers were entrusted to the State Government to levy toll on all the vehicles and trailers drawn by such vehicles passing over or any bridge or through any tunnel including any approach road or sections of roads, by-passes, the cluster of which is situated in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government under the said clause as Single entity, so as to recover by levy and collection of toll on the basis of the total capital outlay incurred, although such vehicles may have enjoyed such augmentation of facilities only partially. By subsequent Amendment vide Act 17/01, a further Amendment was made to the said Section so as to permit the construction of bridges and development projects on "Built, Operate and Transfer" basis through private participation by allowing such private participants to collect tolls at specified rates and period as specified by the State Government by notification to be issued in that behalf. 15. In the light of this legislative development, we will have to construe the provisions of Section 20 as they exist today after suffering several Amendments. It would also be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. 15. In the light of this legislative development, we will have to construe the provisions of Section 20 as they exist today after suffering several Amendments. It would also be appropriate to refer to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 661 , wherein the Apex Court in paragraph no.22, has explained the principle of interpretation which is commonly known as "Heydons Rule" or "Mischief Rule". It reads as under: "22. It is a sound rule of construction of a statute firmly established in England as far back as 1584 when - 'Heydon's case', (1584)3 Co. Rep 7a (V) was decided that .........for the sure and true interpretation of all Statutes in general (be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law) four things are to be discerned and considered: 1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act, 2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide. 3rd. What remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth, and 4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the mischief, and 'pro privato commodo', and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, 'pro bono publico' . In - 'In re, Mayfair Property Co.', (1898)2 Ch. 28 at p.35(W) Lindley M.R. in 1898 found the rule "as necessary now, as it was when Lord Coke reported 'Heydon's case (V)". In - 'Eastman Photographic Material Co. Vs. Comtroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks' 1898 Act 571 at p.576 (X) Earl of Halsbury re-affirmed the rule as follows: "My Lords, it appears to me that to construe the Statute in question, it is not only legitimate but highly convenient to refer both to the former Act and to the ascertained evils to which the former Act had given rise, and to the later Act which provided the remedy. These three being compared I cannot doubt the conclusion." It appears to us that this rule is equally applicable to the construction of Art.286 of our Constitution. In order to properly interpret the provisions of that Article it is, therefore, necessary to consider how the matter stood immediately before the Constitution came into force, what the mischief was for which the old law did not provide and the remedy which has been provided by the Constitution to cure that mis-chief. " It would clearly be seen that in the original Act which is of 1958, it was impermissible for the State Government to levy toll on vehicles. However, by an Amendment in 1969, a provision was made so as to permit State Government to levy toll for recovery of the amount spent on the construction of any bridge including any approach road. In 1974, in addition to bridges, power was also given to levy toll in respect of tunnels. However, this power was restricted only in case where the capital costs incurred was not less than Rs.10 Lakhs. Since the provisions which existed then and which came to be interpreted by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bungalow Plot Owners Association, did not permit the levy of toll for an amount more than the capital costs of such construction, reconstruction or repairs of the bridge or tunnel and since the contention of the State Government that it was also permissible for it to levy toll so as to recover anticipated costs of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening structural repairs, maintenance and also interest on such outlay was specifically rejected by this Court, an Amendment in 1987 was made so as to permit the recovery of such anticipated costs. A further Amendment was made in 1991 so as to permit the recovery of the costs of such works which could also be made at the expenses of any person or body of persons. By said Amendment, provision was made suitably so as to enable the State Government to collect toll either by itself or through an agent authorised by it. By said Amendment, provision was made suitably so as to enable the State Government to collect toll either by itself or through an agent authorised by it. By subsequent Amendment in 1999, in cases of integrated projects declared by Government as single entity, which consists of bridges, tunnels, approach roads or section of roads or by-passes, it was made permissible to levy toll on vehicles even if the said vehicles did not use the entire part of the said integrated project but only uses a part of it. By subsequent Amendment of2001, the provision was made so as to enable the construction of the roads on Build, Operate and Transfer basis through private participation and permitting such enterpreneurs to recover investment made in such projects by allowing to collect toll at specified rates and period as notified by Special or General Order to be issued in that behalf. However, it is to be noted that even after various Amendments, which the said Section has suffered and even though it has been now permitted to recover the costs of certain anticipated works by defining the expression "Capital Outlay", by giving it a wider meaning, the position that would still hold the field is that the State would not be permitted to recover the toll once the amount of "Capital Outlay" as defined under the said Statute is recovered by the State Government. 16. In this background, we are of the considered view that all the provisions of Section 20 would have to be read harmoniously with each other. Sub-section 1-A of the said Section which is non-obstante clause and which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) but subject to the provisions of sub-sections 1(B), 1(C) and l(D), empowers the State Government to levy and collect tolls on motor vehicles and trailers drawn by such vehicles in respect of - (i) passing over any bridge or through any tunnel including an approach road thereto or any section of road or any by-pass described hereunder in clauses (a) and (b), or (ii) passing over or through any portion or a part of any of such bridges or tunnels including the approach roads, thereto or sections of roads or by-passes, the cluster, of which is situated in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government under the said clause (a) as one single entity. Clause (a) of Sub-section I-A would be relevant which provides that a toll may be levied and collected in respect of a bridge or tunnel including an approach road thereto or any section of road or any by-pass or a cluster of such bridges or tunnels including approach roads thereto or sections of roads or by-passes situated in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government, by a notification in the Official Gazette as one single entity. The only rider is that the total capital outlay of the construction, reconstruction, improvement or repairs as the case may be, would not be less than Rs.10 Lakhs. Clause (b) of the said Clause permits the State Government to levy toll in respect of bridge, tunnel including approach thereto or section of road or by-pass which in the opinion of the State Government is of a special service to the public. Explanation given to sub-Section 1-A of Section 20 would be most important which reads thus: "Explanation - For the purposes of this section, the expression "capital outlay" shall include the anticipated cost of certain essential ongoings or imminent works like improvements, strengthening, widening, structural repairs, maintenance, management, operation, reasonable returns and interest on such outlay at such rates as the State Government may fix until the full amount of such outlay is recovered. Provided that not more than the capital outlay and expenses of collection of toll shall be collected under this section." [Emphasis supplied] Clause (A) of the said Section 20 provides that the toll levied under sub-section (1-A) shall be levied at such rate and for such period as the State Government may, from time to time, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare. Clause (B) directs that the State Government shall, while determining the rate of toll and the period for which such toll shall be levied, have regard to the total capital outlay, the likely collection of toll, the expenses of collection of toll, and the terms and conditions of the agreement, if any, entered into with the private person, body or association of persons (incorporated or not) or agent or entrepreneur by the Government or, as the case may be, the State Public Enterprise, relating to the period of collection and retention of the amount of toll by such person, body, agent or entrepreneur, stipulated in the agreement, including grant of reasonable reward in cash or in any other form as an incentive for the early completion of the project. Rest of the provisions of the said Section is relating to B.O.T. therefore, would not be relevant for the purposes of the present petition. Section 1-C permits the State Govell1ment to collect toll itself or through its agent, it also permits the agent to appoint sub-agent for collection of the toll. Sub-clause 1(D) which deals with revision of present facilities would not be relevant for the purposes of the present petition. 17. Harmonious reading of the aforesaid provision would reveal that it is permissible for the State Government to levy toll on vehicles passing over or through any, bridge or tunnel including approach road thereto or any section of road or any by-pass or a cluster of such bridges or tunnels including approach roads thereto or sections of roads or by-passes situated in a well defined zone and declared by State Government, by a notification in Official Gazette as one single entity. In view of the definition of "Capital Outlay", it is also permissible for the State Government to include certain anticipated costs and reasonable returns and interests on such outlay as State Government may fix until full amount of such outlay is recovered. It would further be seen that State Government is not permitted to collect more than the capital outlay and expenses of collection of toll. The State Government is also required to notify the rate and the period for levy of toll by notification under the Official Gazette. It would further be seen that State Government is not permitted to collect more than the capital outlay and expenses of collection of toll. The State Government is also required to notify the rate and the period for levy of toll by notification under the Official Gazette. While determining the rate and the period for such toll shall be levied, the State Government is also obliged to take into consideration the total capital outlay, the likely collection of toll, expenses for collection of toll and the terms and conditions of the agreement etc.. 18. It is thus clear that for making levy of toll permissible for a cluster of bridges, tunnels including approach roads, or sections of the road or by-passes, it is necessary that such bridges, tunnels, roads have to be in a well defined zone and declared by the State Government by a notification in the Official Gazette as one 'single entity'. It is also necessary for the State Government to determine the rate and the period for levy of such toll by notification in the Official Gazette. It is also necessary for the State Government to take into consideration the total capital outlay, the likely collection of toll, expenses of collection of toll etc. while determining the period and the rate of toll. It cannot be in dispute that the capital outlay for different single entities would be different so also, the likely collection of toll, expenses of collection of toll. 19. It can further be seen that the State Government itself has issued a separate Notification dated 9/5/2005, authorising levy of collection of toll on motor vehicles, passing through section of Mumbai-Thane-Ahmednagar- Beed- Parali - Nanded- Bhokar Road upto State border, Major State Highway No.2 including bridges on the said section which is improved in Kilometers 512/400 to 544/400 in Nanded District at the toll collection centre at Ambesawangi in Kilometer 531/00 for the period from 10/5/05 to 31/3/2013. The State has issued another Notification dated 25/11/2004 thereby permitting levy of toll on motor vehicles and trailers passing through section of Aurangabad-Jalna-Watoor-Partur-Kolhar-Parbhani-Nanded and Major State Highway No.6 including bridges on the said section at toll collection centres near (1) Watoor Phata Km.117/400, (2) Kolhar Km.169/00, (3) Dhamoda Km.207/400 and (4) Ughadi Km.243/00 for the period between 25/11/04 to 31/3/06. The State has issued another Notification dated 25/11/2004 thereby permitting levy of toll on motor vehicles and trailers passing through section of Aurangabad-Jalna-Watoor-Partur-Kolhar-Parbhani-Nanded and Major State Highway No.6 including bridges on the said section at toll collection centres near (1) Watoor Phata Km.117/400, (2) Kolhar Km.169/00, (3) Dhamoda Km.207/400 and (4) Ughadi Km.243/00 for the period between 25/11/04 to 31/3/06. By subsequent Notification dated 10/12/ 07, period for levy of toll for section Aurangabad-Jalna-Watoor-Partor- Kolhar-Parbhani-Nanded sections of the aforesaid toll collection centres has been increased from 1/4/2006 to 31/3/2011 at the rates specified therein. 20. It can clearly be seen that the State Government itself vide different Notifications, has recognized the cluster of bridges, by-passes, roads between Thane to Bhokar as a different single entity and has authorised toll collection at Ambesawangi for the period and the rates specified in the Notifications. In so far as classes of bridges, roads etc. between Aurangabad-Nanded is concerned, the same has been recognized as a different single entity, for which separate Notification has been issued for collection of toll at 4 centres mentioned therein for the periods and rate mentioned in the notification. As already discussed hereinabove, State Government while issuing Notification for fixing the rates and period, is required to take into consideration the total Capital Outlay, the likely collection of toll, the expenses of collection of toll, and terms and conditions of the agreement etc.. It cannot be in dispute that the Capital Outlay, estimated collection of toll, the expenses of collection of toll for these two single entities are different and taking into consideration these aspects, the State Government has specified different periods and different rates of tolls for these two single entities. 21. Upon harmonious reading of Section 20 of the said Act, it is clear that State Government is required to issue a Notification in the official gazette for notifying classes of bridges, tunnels and roads or sections of roads or by-passes in well defined zone as one single entity. The State Government is also required to issue a Notification in the official gazette from time to time prescribing the period and the rate of such levy. The State Government is also required to issue a Notification in the official gazette from time to time prescribing the period and the rate of such levy. It is thus clear that the State Government itself is required to issue different Notifications prescribing different rates and different periods by taking into consideration the various factors which in law it is required to take into consideration for different single entities. Not only this but the State Government has in fact done so in the present case. It is not in dispute that in the present case, the power vested in respondent no.2 is as an agent of the State Government. When it is not permissible for the State Government to fix a common rate and common period for different single entities, in our view, it would not be at all permissible for respondent no.2 as an agent of respondent no.1 to issue a combined notice for offering the work of collection of toll in the two different single entities. 22. Not only this, if the collection of toll in the two single entities is given to one person for a specified period, it may also prejudiciously affect rights of the citizens who are permanently using the facilities in one of the aforesaid two single entities. As already discussed hereinabove, the Capital Outlay, the estimated collection and the expenses of collection in respect of both single entities would be different. It is quite possible that the capital outlay of one of the single entities would be reimbursed at an earlier point of time and unnecessarily the citizens using the facilities on that single entity would be required to pay the toll though the Capital Outlay incurred on the said bridge is already reimbursed. 23. Apart from that, from the facts in the present case, it would also be clear that the combining of the collection of toll of two single entities would also not be in the interest of public exchequer. From the tender document itself, it is clear that the estimated toll collection of respondent no.2 on different toll centre is as under: Sr. No. Toll Collection Proportion of total monthly upfront payment deemed. l. Watur Phata Toll Station 8% of total monthly upfront payment. 2. Kolha Toll Station 14% of total monthly upfront payment. 3. Ughadi Toll Station 16% of total monthly upfront payment. 4. No. Toll Collection Proportion of total monthly upfront payment deemed. l. Watur Phata Toll Station 8% of total monthly upfront payment. 2. Kolha Toll Station 14% of total monthly upfront payment. 3. Ughadi Toll Station 16% of total monthly upfront payment. 4. Dhamoda Toll Station 32% of total monthly payment. 5. Ambesawangi Toll Station. 30% of total monthly upfront payment. 24. It can clearly be seen that the estimated collection at Ambesawangi toll station according to respondent no.2 itself, is only 30%. The petitioner has given undertaking that it is willing to bid for a minimum amount ofRs.6.82 Crores. The respondent no.3 has also stated that in case separate bids are invited for Ambesawangi toll station, he would give the minimum bid of 6.9 Crores. If the State is likely to recover an amount of approximately Rs.7 Crores for the 30% of the work, if separate bids are invited and the competition is wider, State Government could get an offer for approximately Rs.14 Crores for Aurangabad-Nanded entity. It is thus, clear that if bids for the two different single entities are invited, the State Government would get much larger revenue. This would in turn also benefit the citizens inasmuch as, if the Capital Outlay is reimbursed earlier, it would not be permissible for the State to recover the toll any further. In any case, we are of the considered view that in view of provisions of Section 20 of the said Act, it is not permissible for the respondent no.2 to issue a combined notice for collection of toll on two different single entities. 25. Though the learned counsel for the respondent has cited various judgments regarding the scope of powers of this Court of judicial review in tender matters, we do not find it necessary to refer to all the judgments. We are of the view that the following observations of the Apex Court referred in the case of Tata Cellur would be sufficient for the purpose of the present petition. "The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. It concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. "The duty of the Court is to confine itself to the question of legality. It concern should be: 1. Whether a decision-making authority exceeded its powers? 2. Committed an error of law. 3. Committed a breach of the rules of natural justice. 4. Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached or, 5. Abused its powers. Therefore, it is not for the Court to determine whether a particular policy or particular decision taken in the fulfilment of that policy is fair. It is only concerned with the manner in which those decisions have been taken. The extent of the duty to act fairly will vary from case to case. Shortly put, the grounds upon which an administrative action is subject to control by judicial review can be classified as under: (i) Illegality : This means the decision-maker must understand correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power and must give effect to it. (ii) Irrationality, namely, Wednesbury unreasonableness. (iii) Procedural impropriety. The above are only the broad grounds but it does not rule out addition of further grounds on course of time. As a matter of fact, in R.V. Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex Brind, Lord Diplock refers specifically to one development, namely, the possible recognition of the principle of proportionality. In all these cases the test to be adopted is that the Court should, "consider whether something has gone wrong of a nature and degree which requires its intervention"." 26. It is thus clear that when there is a patent illegality which means that when the decision-maker has not understood correctly the law that regulates his decision-making power, the Court would be always empowered to invoke its power of judicial review. In the present case, we are of the considered view that the action of respondent no.2 is not permissible in view of the provisions of Section 20 of the said Act. 27. We therefore, find that the act of the respondent No.2 in issuing a notice inviting tenders for awarding combined contract for collection of toll for the aforesaid 5 toll stations, one of which is on Thane-Nanded section and four of which are on the Aurangabad-Nanded section was not permissible in law as the aforesaid two sections are two different single entities, notified by separate Notifications issued by the State of Maharashtra. 28. 28. In the result, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (A). 29. The petitioner shall submit an undertaking to this Court by Saturday the 21st March, 2009, to the effect that if fresh bids are called for a toll station at Ambesawangi, the petitioner would submit a minimum bid of Rs.6.82 Crores for the same. Petition allowed.