ORDER : 1. Both the above stated writ petitions have been filed for restraining the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. of N.H. 30 in the four laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section of N.H. 30 and, accordingly, both the above stated writ petitions were heard together and common order is being passed in the above stated writ petitions. 2. The brief fact, which lies to file both the above stated writ petitions, is that the National Highway Authority of India (hereinafter referred to as “NHAI”) proposed for construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km of N.H. 30 in the four laning of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section of N.H. 30 from 181.300 km to 231.950 km on BOT (toll) basis. Accordingly, the N.H. 30 from 181.300 km to 230.300 km was transferred to the NHAI by the State Government vide letter no. 614 dated 16.05.2011 for four laning work. The NHAI invited proposals for construction, operation and maintenance of above stated project. The D.P.R. of above stated project was prepared and NHAI after detailed survey found 194 km. to be the suitable site for development of Toll Plaza system. However, the above stated project was handed over to concessionaire with whom NHAI entered into concessionaire agreement on 31.03.2011 for construction of said four lane Patna- Bakhtiyarpur Road on N.H. 30. The petitioners being aggrieved of proposed construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. of N.H. 30 made several representations before the concerned authorities but all went in vain. Thereafter, they filed the above stated writ petitions. Originally, CWJC No. 4526/2013 was put up before a Division Bench of this Court but when it was brought to the notice of Division Bench of this Court that CWJC No. 5643 of 2012 is pending in respect of the same grievances, the Division Bench of this Court ordered for listing of CWJC No. 4526/2013 along with CWJC No. 5643/2012. 3. The case of the petitioners is that after preparation of D.P.R. as well as after its approval by the competent authority, the actual ground conditions in and around the proposed site of Toll Plaza at 194 km. of N.H. 30 has already been changed and a number of important commercial establishments have been established in and around the proposed site of Toll Plaza at 194 km. Some of which were not in existence when the D.P.R. for the four laning was under preparation. of N.H. 30 has already been changed and a number of important commercial establishments have been established in and around the proposed site of Toll Plaza at 194 km. Some of which were not in existence when the D.P.R. for the four laning was under preparation. Neither the NHAI nor the Government issued any prohibitory order restraining construction in and around the above stated proposed site of Toll Plaza. Furthermore, the grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed site of Toll Plaza is clear violation of Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 2008”) as well as para 6.3 of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways Circular No. RW/NH- 33023/19/99-DO-III dated 25.09.2003 and 17.10.2003 which provides that no check barrier/toll plaza would be installed within one km of fuel station/rest area. Further case of the petitioners is that there are two fuel stations within a distance of one km in the west of the proposed site of Toll Plaza and one fuel station at the distance of 300 meter from the proposed site of Toll Plaza is under construction. Further grievance of the petitioners is that construction of Toll Plaza at proposed site would adversely affect the interest of the common people because they will have to pay toll whenever they cross the proposed Toll Plaza because no appropriate alternate way has been provided either by the NHAI or by the Concessionaire. Further case of the petitioners is that the proposed site for construction of Toll Plaza comes within municipal area and the NHAI has not given any reason in writing for construction of Toll Plaza at proposed site within municipal area. 4. The officials of NHAI filed counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavits in which they, specifically, pleaded that petitioners suppressed the real facts and these writ petitions have been filed with an ulterior motive at the behest of commercial establishments and as a matter of fact, none of the local residents has come forward to raise his grievance against the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km of N.H. 30. Furthermore, it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that proposed site of construction of toll Plaza is not in violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 because proviso of the aforesaid rule, specifically, says that Toll Plaza may be established within the municipal or town area limits or within a distance of 5 kms. from such limits. It has further been pleaded that the location of Toll Plaza has been fixed at km 194 as per the detailed survey by D.P.R. consultant M/s Meinhardt Consultant Private Ltd. considering the ground condition, future development of the surrounding and viability of the project with respect to traffic density and its leakage as per the guidelines and if the Toll Plaza is shifted to any other place, there will be huge traffic leakage from old road and the same will badly affect the viability of the project and will also be violation of the agreement entered between NHAI and the Concessionaire. Furthermore, it has been pleaded that para 6.3 of the Circular No. RW/NH-33023/19/99-DO-III dated 17.10.2003 is not applicable for existing fuel station and if there is any violation of the aforesaid rule, it is the oil company who will responsible for the violation of the aforesaid rule and moreover, access of both the pre-existed fuel stations have been provided through service roads and the access roads to other surrounding commercial establishments and residential buildings have already been provided. It has further been pleaded in the counter affidavit that all the commercial establishments in and around the proposed site of Toll Plaza location have been established after preparation of detailed progress report violating the guidelines of building lines and control lines as mentioned in para 6.1.4 of the IRC:73- 1980 which says that no permanent structures are allowed to construct within control lines and prior to construction, NOC for access is to be taken from highway administrator but the concerned commercial establishments have not taken any NOC from the competent authority before construction of their structures within control lines. Furthermore, it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that if any change is made in the site of construction of Toll Plaza after the junction of old existing road and realigned portion i.e. after km 194.700, the major traffic will be diverted through old road making the project unviable and also violation of concession agreement as well as State Support agreement and local contractual problem may arise due to financial claim by concessionaire. It has also been pleaded in the counter affidavit that construction of Toll Plaza at proposed site of km 194 has already been completed. It has further been pleaded that there is no compulsion for users to use the constructed toll road and there is provision to escape the toll road to reach Patna- Fatuha/Bakhtiyarpur, if any user does not want to use toll road. It has also been pleaded that the median, openings and underpass have already been completed and as a matter of fact, the surrounding commercial establishments including the establishments of the petitioners have encroached the newly constructed toll road and despite making several request to the District Administration, the encroachments made by surrounding commercial establishments have not been removed. Accordingly, it has been prayed on behalf of NHAI to dismiss the above stated writ petitions on admission stage itself. 5. Separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondent no. 11, who happens to be concessionaire. The respondent no. 11 has also taken similar stand as taken by the NHAI. However, it has, specifically, been pleaded by the respondent no. 11 that petitioners do not have any locus standi to file these writ petitions and moreover, they have suppressed the real facts and filed these writ petitions with ulterior motive. Furthermore, it has been pleaded on behalf of respondent no. 11 that the persons traveling from Saristabad More or other parts of Patna-Fatuha can use Gaya road to reach at Fatuha without paying any toll tax and similarly, while traveling from Fatuha to Patna the travelers had three exit points to reach to Patna without paying the toll tax which is evident from Annexure-R-II/A of the counter affidavit of respondent no. 11. It has further been pleaded that access road is being built on both sides of N.H. 30 from 181.300 km to 194.25 km. 11. It has further been pleaded that access road is being built on both sides of N.H. 30 from 181.300 km to 194.25 km. It has further been pleaded that the construction of Toll Plaza at km 194 has already been completed. It has also been pleaded that notice regarding construction of Toll Plaza at proposed site had already been given through publication of notice in daily newspapers but none raised objection in respect of construction of Toll Plaza at km 194 of N.H. 30 which is evident from perusal of Annexure-R-II/A series of the 4th supplementary counter affidavits and, accordingly, it is prayed on behalf of the concessionaire that these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 6. Similarly, respondent no. 12 has also filed its counter affidavit pleading therein that 194 km milestone which is at Didarganj check post where the proposed toll plaza is to be constructed falls within municipal area and the Didarganj check post falls under Ward No. 72 which is one of the constituent units of the Patna Municipal Corporation. 7. Learned counsel Sri J. S. Arora appearing for the petitioners submits that admittedly, the Central Government has framed Rules 2008 under the power given to the Central Government under Section 9 of National Highways Act, 1956 and by exercising the aforesaid power the above stated Rules 2008 have been made and furthermore, Section 9 (2) (a) of National Highways Act, 1956 determines the field for which rules may be made and the aforesaid Section 9 (2) (a) says that the manner in which, and the conditions subject to which, any function in relation to the development or maintenance of a national highway or any part thereof may be exercised by the State Government or any officer or authority subordinate to the Central Government or the State Government. He further submits that according to Rule 8 of Rules 2008, the Toll Plaza can be established beyond a distance of 10 kms from a municipal or local town area limits and if executing authority feels to establish a toll plaza within a distance of 10 kms of municipal or local town area limits, the said authority must record his reason in writing but in no case toll plaza can be established within 5 kms of municipal or local town area limits. He, further, submits that the second proviso of the aforesaid rule says that a toll plaza may be established within 5 kms or within the limits of municipal or town area but the toll plaza is constructed within the limits of municipal or town area or within 5 kms of limits of municipal or town area, the same can only be established, if the conditions given in the aforesaid provisions are fulfilled. 8. He further submits that NHAI as well as concessionaire have admitted in their respective counter affidavits that the toll plaza is being constructed within the limits of Municipal Corporation of Patna and they have claimed that the proposed Toll Plaza at 194 km on N.H. 30 has been constructed under the second proviso of Rule 8 but admittedly, they have not assigned any reason in writing for establishing the toll plaza at 194 km milestone within the limit of Municipal Corporation of Patna and, therefore, it is apparent that the NHAI and concessionaire have violated the Rule 8 of Rules 2008 which is mandatory in nature. He further submits that respondent no. 11, the concessionaire has no right to defend the construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone and cannot take a stand contrary to the stand as taken by respondents no. 6 to 8, the officials of NHAI and, therefore, the concessionaire cannot say that the proposed toll plaza has been constructed by him in accordance with the rules. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that initially, the respondents no. 6 to 8 did not accept that the Toll Plaza was being constructed within municipal area but when Patna Municipal Corporation filed its counter affidavit highlighting this fact that the Toll Plaza was being constructed in municipal area, thereafter, the respondents no. 6 to 8 took stand that even if the Toll Plaza was being constructed within municipal area, the aforesaid construction was in accordance with second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that initially, the NHAI has not assigned any reason for construction of Toll Plaza within 10 kms. of municipal area but later on, the officials of NHAI started justifying their action taking shelter of second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that initially, the NHAI has not assigned any reason for construction of Toll Plaza within 10 kms. of municipal area but later on, the officials of NHAI started justifying their action taking shelter of second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred decision of Mohinder Singh Gill and another vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in AIR 1978 SC, 851 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court as follows- “when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned therein and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out”. Having relied upon the above stated decisions, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the officials of NHAI permitted the concessionaire to construct toll plaza violating the Rule 8 of Rules 2008 and now, at this stage, they cannot say that above stated permission was granted under second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that respondents no. 6 to 8 have come before this court with an explanation that they got the detailed progress report (D.P.R.) from a reputed agency and the above stated agency in detailed progress report (D.P.R.) found the space around 194 km. milestone for construction of Toll Plaza and reasons for construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone were given in the detailed progress report itself. He further submitted that even if the concerned agency suggested for construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone, then also, it was the duty of officials of NHAI to consider this fact as to whether the aforesaid suggestion is in accordance with rules or not. He further submitted that as per Section 3 (3) of National Highways Rules, 1957, it was the obligation of executing agency to survey and investigate with regard to any work proposed to be done and to send the same with proposal to the Central Government. He further submitted that detailed progress report is not a conclusive document and the same is only a proposal which may or may not be accepted. He further submitted that detailed progress report is not a conclusive document and the same is only a proposal which may or may not be accepted. He further submitted that in the instant case, the detailed progress report was not in accordance with rules and, therefore, NHAI committed error in accepting the detailed progress report. He further submitted that in detailed progress report, it has been mentioned that area in and around 195 km milestone was vacant but as a matter of fact, the aforesaid observation was factually wrong and the petitioners have brought several documents on record to show that there was commercial activity in and around 194 km milestone since long before the work assigned to the concerned agency for detailed progress report and, therefore, the detailed progress report on its face suffers from the factual error. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that even if it assumed that NHAI permitted for construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone taking aid of second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008, then also, it is apparent that the conditions mentioned in second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 have not been fulfilled in the instant case because the section of national highway near 194 km milestone is not for the use of the persons/residents of the concerned locality rather the residents of concerned locality have been restricted from coming over the concerned section of national highway. He further submitted that so far as provision of service road for the local residents and persons nearby is concerned, the respondents deliberately have made construction of service road at levelled below 5 to 7 ft. from the level of the national highway and they have blocked the same from both sides by giving a concrete wall so that no body may go to the service road from the establishments of the petitioners and furthermore, the respondents have also blocked both end of the service road and they have not made an inner connection between the national highway and service road. He further submitted that apart from the above stated fact, the service road is only 4 meter wide whereas the National Highways Act makes provision of 10 meter wide service road. 12. He further submitted that apart from the above stated fact, the service road is only 4 meter wide whereas the National Highways Act makes provision of 10 meter wide service road. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that alternative route provided by the respondents for using old N.H. 30 without crossing the toll plaza is neither practicable nor appropriate because the route as suggested by the respondents for using the old N.H. 30 without crossing the toll plaza requires traveling of excess around 35 km on a most damaged narrow road and, therefore, it is apparent that the respondents chose the location of toll plaza with intent to collect toll from those persons also who are not willing to use the toll road. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that no doubt, the court should not interfere into the public policy of the government or government agency but if the public policy of the government or government agency is against the statutory provisions as well as statutory rules, the court can interfere into the said decision of the government or government agency. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred decision of Centre for PIL and another vs. Union of India and another reported in (2011) 4 SCC 1 . He also relied upon a decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, Gian Prakash, New Delhi and another vs. K.S. Jagannathan and another reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 537. In both the above stated decisions, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that public policy does not give mandate to the State nor take away the right of the court to interfere into the acts of the State, if the same are in violation of the law or is completely illegal. 14. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel Sri Y.V. Giri appearing for the respondents no. 6 to 8 refuted the above stated submissions arguing that the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone is in consonance with the rules. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 clearly makes provision that a Toll Plaza may be constructed within 5 kms of municipal area. 6 to 8 refuted the above stated submissions arguing that the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone is in consonance with the rules. He further submitted that as a matter of fact, the second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 clearly makes provision that a Toll Plaza may be constructed within 5 kms of municipal area. He further submitted that if a toll plaza is constructed in accordance with second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008, there is no need to assign any reason and moreover, the reasons for construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone had already been mentioned in detailed progress report and, therefore, there was no occasion nor it was necessary to give separate reason for construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone by the officials of NHAI. He further submitted that no fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated and, therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. He further submitted that it is well settled principle of law that if fundamental rights of a person are violated, then, in that event, the court can entertain petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He further submitted that petitioners have not challenged the detailed progress report and it is well settled principle of law that a policy decision of the government cannot be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that above stated policy decision is a wrong decision. He cited decision of Bagaram Tuloule vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR (37) 1950 Patna 387 wherein it has been held that the words “for any other purpose” in the Article 226 of Constitution of India can hardly mean that the High Court can issue writs for any purpose it pleases and the correct interpretation is that the words means “for the enforcement of any legal right and the performance of any legal duty.” He also relied upon a decision of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh and another reported in (2008) 5 SCC, 550 wherein it has been held that so long as infringement of fundamental rights is not shown, the courts will have no occasion to interfere. Another decision on this point has been cited by learned counsel for the respondents is AIR 2006 SC 2609 wherein it has been held that while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 6 to 8 further submitted that admittedly, the service road has already been provided and there is no violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. He also submitted that as per Section 2 of National Highway Act, 1956, N.H. 30 had already been declared national highway and, therefore, petitioners cannot say that they were not aware about the declaration of N.H. 30 as national highway. He submitted that petitioners themselves violated the settled guidelines of transport ministry and by violating the guidelines of transport ministry, they constructed their establishments near national highway and for the aforesaid construction, they did not take prior permission from the concerned authority which is mandatory in nature and, therefore, they cannot say that due to construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone, they are being prevented to carry their business. He further submitted that petitioners prayed before this court for restraining the respondents from constructing the Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone but this court vide order dated 06.12.2013 refused to grant stay in favour of the petitioners. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 11 seconded the submissions of learned counsel of respondents no. 6 to 8 and also added that petitioners have not come with clean hands before this court and as a matter of fact, they suppressed material facts and when the said facts were highlighted by the respondents before this court, the petitioners admitted the aforesaid facts. Continuing his submission, he submitted that initially, petitioners suppressed this fact that they have establishments near 194 km milestone of NH 30 and when the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of this court by the respondents, the petitioners by filing supplementary affidavit admitted the aforesaid fact. Continuing his submission, he submitted that initially, petitioners suppressed this fact that they have establishments near 194 km milestone of NH 30 and when the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of this court by the respondents, the petitioners by filing supplementary affidavit admitted the aforesaid fact. He submitted that it is well settled principle of law that if any person suppresses any material fact and comes before the court for a relief, the court can refuse to give relief to that person only on the ground that the said person has suppressed real facts. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 relied upon decision of K.D. Sharma vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others reported in (2008) 12 SCC 481 wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that where petitioner makes false statement or conceals material facts or misleads the court in such a case, the court may dismiss the petition at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 submitted that admittedly, petitioners have suppressed the material facts and, therefore, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed without entering into the merits of the case. He further submitted that at the time of preparation of detailed progress report, the location for construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone was chosen on the basis of tollable traffic density as well as traffic leakage. He further submitted that NHAI entered into an agreement with respondent no. 11 and any shifting of proposed toll plaza shall cause inconvenience to respondent no. 11 as well as NHAI because the shifting of proposed toll plaza shall break the terms of agreement. He further submitted that the detailed progress report has been prepared by an expert body with the help of NHAI and normally, the courts should not interfere with the report of an expert body. 11 as well as NHAI because the shifting of proposed toll plaza shall break the terms of agreement. He further submitted that the detailed progress report has been prepared by an expert body with the help of NHAI and normally, the courts should not interfere with the report of an expert body. In support of his contention, he referred a decision reported in (2011) 12 SCC, 69 (Union of India vs. Kushala Shetty and Ors.) He also referred a decision reported in (2014) 6 SCC, 75 in which it has been held by the Apex Court that Court, at times, may forego/overlook the technicalities coming in the way of issuance of any direction which may conflict with or jeopardize public interest, but such power cannot be allowed to reach to the extent or affect the contractual agreement itself which reduces a valid and a legal document into a worthless piece of paper. On the strength of aforesaid decision of Hon?ble Supreme Court, learned counsel for the respondent no. 11 submitted that any direction for shifting of toll plaza shall affect the contract which has taken place between the NHAI and Concessionaire and, therefore, this court should dismiss these writ petitions. 17. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties as well as having perused the pleadings of the parties, I find that the main grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone of N.H. 30 is in violation of Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. Having heard the rival contentions of both the parties as well as having perused the pleadings of the parties, I find that the main grievance of the petitioners is that the proposed construction of toll plaza at 194 km milestone of N.H. 30 is in violation of Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. Therefore, first of all I would like to refer Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 which runs as follows:- Location of toll plaza-(1) The executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, shall establish a toll plaza beyond a distance of ten kilometers from a municipal or local town area limits: Provided that the executing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, locate or allow the concessionaire to locate a toll plaza within a distance of ten kilometers of such municipal or local town area limits, but in no case within five kilometers of such municipal or local town area limits: Provided further that where a section of the national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, is constructed within the municipal or town area limits or within five kilometers from such limits, primarily for use of the residents of such municipal or town area, the toll plaza may be established within the municipal or town area limits or within a distance of five kilometers from such limits. (2) Any other toll plaza on the same section of national highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of sixty kilometers: Provided that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another toll plaza within a distance of sixty kilometers: Provided further that a toll plaza may be established within a distance of sixty kilometers from another toll plaza if such toll plaza is for collection of fee for a permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel. 18. 18. From bare perusal of the Rule 8 of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 it would show that a toll plaza should be established beyond a distance of 10 kms from a municipal or local town area limits but first proviso of the aforesaid rule permits the establishment of toll plaza within a distance of 10 kms of municipal or local town area limits, if reasons are recorded in writing but in no case toll plaza can be established within 5 kms of municipal or local town area limits. Furthermore, second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 permits the construction of toll plaza within 5 kms of municipal or town area limits or within the municipal or town area limits, if a section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, is constructed within such municipal or town area limits or within 5 kms from such limits, primarily for use of the residents of such municipal or town area. 19. The NHAI as well as concessionaire claim that the location of toll plaza at 194 km milestone of NH 30 has been selected under second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 and the second proviso of Rule 8 does not give any mandate to record reasons in writing for making selection of location of toll plaza within the ambit of above stated proviso. 20. Admittedly, Rule 8 gives mandate to establish a Toll Plaza beyond a distance of 10 kms. from a municipal or local town area limits but first proviso of the aforesaid rule makes an exception for construction of Toll Plaza within a distance of 10 kms. of municipal or local town area limits, if the executing authority feels it proper to construct a toll plaza within the above stated area but before taking decision of construction of toll Plaza within 10 kms. of municipal or town area, the executing authority must assigns its reason in writing for construction of toll plaza within the above stated area. In the instant case, admittedly, the proposed toll plaza is within 5 kms. of area of Patna Municipal Corporation and as per claim of the executing authority, the aforesaid proposed Toll Plaza is being constructed under 2nd proviso of Rule 8. In the instant case, admittedly, the proposed toll plaza is within 5 kms. of area of Patna Municipal Corporation and as per claim of the executing authority, the aforesaid proposed Toll Plaza is being constructed under 2nd proviso of Rule 8. In 2nd proviso of Rule 8 the conditions in which the Toll Plaza can be established within 5 kms. of municipal or town area have already been given in the 2nd proviso itself and except the conditions given in 2nd proviso of the rule, the Toll Plaza within 5 kms. of municipal or town area cannot be constructed. The second proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 is in continuous of 1st proviso of the said rule and therefore, if a Toll Plaza is constructed under the 2nd proviso of Rule 8, the concerned authority is not only duty bound to give reasons in writing but also to adhere the conditions mentioned in 2nd proviso of the Rule 8. However, before taking decision for construction of Toll Plaza within 5 kms. of municipal or local town area limits, the executing authorities must satisfy themselves that the conditions given in 2nd proviso of Rule 8 have already been fulfilled. The first proviso of Rule 8 specifically states that in no case within 5 kms. of municipal or local town area limits, the Toll Plaza can be established but as per the 2nd proviso, a Toll Plaza may be established within the municipal limits or within 5 kms. of municipal limits only if the following conditions are satisfied:- 1. That a section of the national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, is constructed within the municipal limits or within 5 kms. From such limits. II. That such construction of the national highway is primarily intended for the use of residents of the municipal or town area. 21. In the instant case, the concerned respondents have, nowhere including the D.P.R. stated that new alignment is intended primarily for the use of local residents of Patna Municipal Corporation rather in the instant case, due to construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone, the local residents have been restrained to use even old N.H.-30 and furthermore, due to construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone, the local residents have been restrained to use even old N.H.-30 and furthermore, due to construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone, the persons who do not intend to use the new alignment shall have to pay toll tax even for use of old N.H.-30. Therefore, in my opinion, there is violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008. 22. It has been argued on behalf of the respondents that no fundamental rights of petitioners are violated and, therefore, they have no locus standi to file the instant writ petitions nor this court is competent to entertain petitions filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. No doubt, it is well settled principle of law that the court can entertain petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India, if fundamental rights of a person or statutory provisions are violated and normally, this court does not interfere into the Government policy but in the instant case, statutory provision of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 has been violated by the respondents and it is well settled principle of law that no Government policy can be implemented contrary to the statutory provisions. In the instant case, the respondents have not followed Rule 8 of Rules 2008 and, therefore, there is violation of statutory provision and in the aforesaid circumstance, this court has jurisdiction to entertain a petition filed under Section 226 of the Constitution of India. 23. It has also been argued that the petitioners, initially, suppressed this fact that they have big establishments near 194 km. milestone of N.H. 30 and when the aforesaid fact was brought to the notice of this court by the respondents, the petitioners admitted the above stated fact. Admittedly, there are 17 petitioners in CWJC No. 5643 of 2012. No doubt, some of the petitioners of above stated CWJC No. 5643 of 2012 have establishments near 194 km. milestone of N.H. 30 but it has, specifically, been pleaded at paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the main writ petition that there are so many business establishments in and around the proposed Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone. No doubt, some of the petitioners of above stated CWJC No. 5643 of 2012 have establishments near 194 km. milestone of N.H. 30 but it has, specifically, been pleaded at paragraphs no. 6 and 7 of the main writ petition that there are so many business establishments in and around the proposed Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone. Furthermore, it is also apparent from the address given by the petitioners of CWJC No. 5643 of 2012 that some of the petitioners are local residents and, therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioners suppressed real facts and only on the above stated ground, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 24. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that according to Section 2 of National Highways Act, 1956, N.H.- 30 was declared national highway on 15.04.1957 and petitioners were aware of the aforesaid declaration but in spite of that they got constructed their business establishments near the national highway violating the rules framed by the Ministry of Road and Transport Department and furthermore, the petitioners did not take no objection certificate for construction of their establishments near the national highway. Here, I would like to refer Section 2 of National Highways Act, 1956 which runs as follows:- 1. Each of the highways specified in the Schedule 3[* * *] is hereby declared to be a national highway. 2. The Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, declare any other highway to be a national highway and on the publication of such notification such highway shall be deemed to be specified in the Schedule. 3. The Central Government may, by like notification, omit any highway from the Schedule and on the publication of such notification, the highway so omitted shall cease to be a national highway. 25. From bare perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is obvious that N.H. 30 was declared national highway after enforcement of above stated National Highways Act, 1956 but originally, Section 2 of National Highways Act, 1956 exempted the parts of national highway which were situated within any municipal area to be part of national highway and admittedly, by Act 16 of 1997, the following words” except such parts thereof as are situated within any municipal area” were omitted from Section 2 of National Highways Act, 1956. The Act 16 of 1997 was enforced with effect from 24.01.1997. The Act 16 of 1997 was enforced with effect from 24.01.1997. In the instant case, petitioners have brought several documents to show that some of the establishments were made much prior to 1997. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstance, it cannot be said that the petitioners violated the Rules of Ministry of Road and Transport Department and got constructed their establishment in utter violation of any rules because the part of N.H. 30 which was under the municipal area was never declared national highway till 1997 and, therefore, there was no necessity to take no objection certificate from the concerned authority before making any construction near N.H. 30 within municipal area of Patna Municipal Corporation. In the aforesaid circumstance, I do not find any force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that petitioners themselves violated the rules. 26. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that petitioners have not challenged the detailed progress report (D.P.R.) and as a matter of fact, reasons for construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone had already been given in the detailed progress report. Again, I am unable to accept the aforesaid contention because the detailed progress report was only a proposal which was prepared by a private consultant agency and it was duty and obligation of the officials of NHAI to look into the aforesaid detailed progress report and to decide as to whether the detailed progress report has been prepared in accordance with the rules or not. In the instant case, the proposal for construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone is apparently against the Rule 8 but the officials of NHAI has not brought anything before this court to show that before giving their approval to D.P.R, they had discussed this fact as to why they were giving approval to detailed progress report which was against the Rule 8 of Rules 2008. Although, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the detailed progress report was approved under 2nd proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 but as I have already discussed that there was nothing even in the detailed progress report that the construction of new alignment was primarily for the use of local residents. Although, it has been argued on behalf of the respondents that the detailed progress report was approved under 2nd proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 but as I have already discussed that there was nothing even in the detailed progress report that the construction of new alignment was primarily for the use of local residents. Therefore, even if it assumed that the officials of NHAI approved the detailed progress report under 2nd proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008, then also, that approval was not in accordance with the rule because there was nothing before the officials of NHAI to come on the conclusion that all the conditions of 2nd proviso of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 were fulfilled. So far as non-challenge of detailed progress report is concerned, in my opinion, there is no need to challenge the detailed progress report because the detailed progress report is mere a proposal and I am of the opinion that the petitioners rightly challenged the decision of officials of NHAI. 27. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that service roads have already been provided to the local residents and, therefore, there is no inconvenience to local residents, if the Toll Plaza is established at 194 km. milestone but it has, specifically, been pleaded by the petitioners in their supplementary affidavits that the respondents have made construction of service road at levelled below 5 to 7 ft. from the level of national highway and they have blocked the same from both sides by giving a concrete wall so that nobody could go to the service road from the establishments of the petitioners and furthermore, they have also blocked both end of above stated service road and no inner connection was provided between the national highway and service road. It has also been pleaded by the petitioners that there was no way to go on old national highway from the service road and moreover, only 4 metre wide service road has been provided whereas as per rule, the width of service road must be not less than 10 metre and it should be parallel to the national highway. The above stated pleadings of the petitioners have not, specifically, been controverted by the respondents rather they have themselves admitted in their map produced before this court that only 4 metre wide service road has been provided. The above stated pleadings of the petitioners have not, specifically, been controverted by the respondents rather they have themselves admitted in their map produced before this court that only 4 metre wide service road has been provided. Therefore, it is apparent from the aforesaid fact that respondents have violated rules even in construction of service road. 28. Annexure-I to the 3rd counter affidavit filed on behalf of NHAI reveals that four lane construction of N.H. 30 starts from 181 km. milestone and ends to 230 km. milestone where it touches N.H. 31. Furthermore, above stated Annexure-I reveals that between 194 km. milestone and 197 km milestone the proposed new alignment separates from old N.H. 30. It is also apparent from the above stated Annexure-I that a person who comes from Fatuha and goes to Patna, has to pay toll tax and, similarly, a person comes from Patna and goes to Fatuha through old N.H. 30 without using proposed new alignment which turns towards N.H. 31 will also have to pay toll tax because the proposed toll plaza is being constructed much prior to the place from where the new alignment separates from old N.H. 30. As I have already stated that the site of proposed Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone was chosen in violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 and it is apparent that the proposed location for establishment of Toll Plaza is not only violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 but also charges tax from the persons who do not intend to use the toll road rather prefer to use old N.H. 30. No doubt, the expert agency proposed for location of toll plaza after taking into consideration all pros and cons particularly, keeping in mind leakage of vehicle and density and ordinarily, the court does not interfere into the decision of an expert body but in the instant case, it is obvious that the aforesaid decision of expert body is not only the violation of rule but also the violation of fundamental rights of the petitioners. Therefore, in my view, the decision of expert body for construction of toll plaza at 194 km. milestone does not stand in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. 29. Therefore, in my view, the decision of expert body for construction of toll plaza at 194 km. milestone does not stand in the eye of law and liable to be set aside. 29. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that the work of establishment of Toll Plaza has already been completed and if any order for shifting of Toll Plaza to another place is passed by this court, the same will cause huge monetary loss as well as shall also be amount to break of legal agreement entered into between the NHAI and concessionaire but I am not, at all, convinced with the above stated submission because when petitioners prayed before this court for grant of interim order to restrain the respondents to construct the Toll Plaza at proposed 194 km milestone of N.H. 30, this court vide order dated 06.12.2013 observed that the NHAI, the contractor and Union of India should consider the legality of construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone before starting and commissioning the Toll Plaza. However, this court directed that till the service lanes, median and opening under-pass all are fully constructed and made operational, toll collection of any sort would not be permitted because once the constructions are complete, the anomaly and dichotomy pointed out on behalf of the petitioners would not happen or arise and furthermore, it was observed by this court in the said order that no non-user of toll road would be required to pay toll. Although, respondents have claimed before this court that service lanes etc. have already been constructed but as I have discussed earlier that the aforesaid service roads have not been constructed in accordance with rules rather the aforesaid service roads are covered from both the sides and even if the service roads have been constructed by the respondents, then also, a person comes from Fatuha to Patna or goes from Patna to Fatuha will have to pay toll tax due to location of toll Plaza. Therefore, even if the respondents have already completed the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone, then also, at this stage, they cannot take this defence that the construction has already been completed, particularly, in the light of observation made by this court vide its order dated 06.12.2013. 30. Therefore, even if the respondents have already completed the construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km. milestone, then also, at this stage, they cannot take this defence that the construction has already been completed, particularly, in the light of observation made by this court vide its order dated 06.12.2013. 30. It has also been argued on behalf of the respondents that if a person does not have intend to pay toll tax, the said person has an alternative way and may use the aforesaid way without paying toll tax but it is apparent from perusal of the materials including map produced by the respondents before this court that if a person takes the alternative way, as suggested by the respondents, he would have to travel of access around more than 35 km. Therefore, the alternative way, as suggested by the respondents, is neither advisable nor practicable. 31. This court is conscious of this fact that an agreement for collection of toll as well as construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone has already been executed between the NHAI as well as concessionaire and shifting of any terms and conditions of the agreement will rise legal complications between the parties of the above stated agreement but when the said agreement has been executed between the parties violating the statutory provisions, the parties to the aforesaid agreement are themselves liable to bear the consequences which may arise after passing of this order. 32. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid discussions, these writ petitions are allowed and respondents no. 6 and 11 are directed to shift the proposed construction of Toll Plaza at 194 km milestone of Patna-Bakhtiyarpur Section of N.H. 30 from its present location to any other place on new alignment which separates from old N.H. 30 so that the violation of Rule 8 of Rules 2008 could be avoided and the persons who do not have intend to use toll road could be exempted from paying toll tax. The respondent no. 6 should take the decision of shifting the above stated Toll Plaza to any other place as discussed above within six weeks from today and till then respondents shall not collect the toll tax from those persons who do have intend to go through the old N.H. 30 without using the new alignment of toll road. The parties shall bear their own cost.