Judgment : V. Ramasubramanian, J. 1. An Advocate by name R.Murali, filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.13906 of 2012 seeking the issue of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents 1 to 3 who are the National Highways Authority of India to take action against the fourth respondent namely, M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited, for unlawfully collecting toll fee at Kappalur Toll Plaza for the vehicles using N.H-208, against the tender conditions. The Writ Petition was admitted on 31.10.2012 and an order of interim injunction was granted in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2012 on the same day namely, 31.10.2012 restraining the fourth respondent from collecting toll fee at Kappalur Toll Plaza for the vehicles not using N.H.7. 2. Thereafter, the fourth respondent in the Writ Petition came up with an application in M.P(MD) No.2 of 2012 seeking to vacate the interim order of injunction granted on 31.12.2012. The National Highways Authority of India Limited also came up with a vacating injunction application in M.P.(MD)No.1 of 2013. 3. When the above Writ Petition was pending, another Advocate who is also a former Member of State Legislative Assembly, came up with a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.14535 of 2012, seeking a declaration that the National Highways Fees (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules 2008 in general and Rule 3 of the said Rules in particular are discriminatory and void and consequentially, to direct the second respondent to remove the Kappalur Toll Plaza located at K.m 18.652. This Writ Petition came up by way of a Public Interest Litigation and hence, it was posted before the Division Bench. The Division Bench admitted this Writ Petition on 22.11.2012 and directed the previous Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.13906 of 2012 also to be tagged along with this Writ Petition. Pending Writ Petition, the Bench also granted an interim injunction restraining the M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited from demanding and collecting any fee from passengers travelling into Thirumangalam and beyond in N.H.208 and in the reverse direction going to Madurai. This interim injunction was granted in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 on 22.11.2012, at the time of admission of the Writ Petition. 4. Thereafter, M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited filed a petition in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013, for vacating the interim injunction granted in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 in W.P(MD)No.14535 of 2012. 5. This interim injunction was granted in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 on 22.11.2012, at the time of admission of the Writ Petition. 4. Thereafter, M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited filed a petition in M.P(MD)No.1 of 2013, for vacating the interim injunction granted in M.P(MD)No.2 of 2012 in W.P(MD)No.14535 of 2012. 5. Subsequently, the petitioner in the second Writ Petition came up with yet another Writ Petition, again in public interest in W.P(MD)No.7228 of 2014, challenging the notification in S.O.No.987(E), dated 01.05.2012, by which the Toll Plaza at the disputed place was notified. 6. After the filing of the Writ Petitions and the grant of interim orders, the licence granted to M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited which was the fourth and third respondent respectively, in the first and second writ petitions expired. Another company by name Raima Toll Road Private Limited obtained licence for collection of toll at the Kappalur Toll Plaza. Therefore, they filed applications in both Writ Petitions in W.P(MD)Nos.13906 and 14535 of 2012 for impleading themselves as the fifth respondent and sixth respondent respectively. The impleading applications were allowed by an order dated 21.03.2014. 7. We have heard Mr. T.S.R. Venkataramana, the petitioner appearing in person, Messers. M.Thirunavukkarasu, and K.Govindarajan, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.Wilson, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for National Highways Authority of India and Mr. P.V. Balasubramaniam, learned counsel for the licensee. 8. Before we understand the legal issues involved in these public interest litigations, it is necessary to have the factual matrix on record. The factual matrix as revealed by the counter affidavit filed by the National Highways Authority of India, which can be taken as the authenticated one, is as follows :- (i) The work of formation of four laning road from Samayanallur to Virudhunagar at a distance of 52.300 kms was implemented in the year 2009 at a capital cost of Rs.429.50 Crores. (ii) As per the detailed project report, the location of the Toll Plaza was determined at 18.652kms of Kappalur village and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued a notification in the Gazette in S.O.987(E), dated 01.05.2012, levying fee for the use of section from k.m 1.500 to 52.300. (ii) As per the detailed project report, the location of the Toll Plaza was determined at 18.652kms of Kappalur village and the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways issued a notification in the Gazette in S.O.987(E), dated 01.05.2012, levying fee for the use of section from k.m 1.500 to 52.300. The user fee as determined and fixed by the order dated 23.05.2012 is presented in a tabular column as follows :- Category of Vehicles Fee of Single Journey Fee for return journey within a day Fee for monthly pass for 50 single journeys in a month Fee for the commercial vehicles registered within the district Plaza Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 55 80 1750 25 Light Commercial Vehicle, Light Goods vehicle or mini Bus 85 125 2830 40 Bus or Truck (Two axles) 180 265 5925 90 Three Axle Commercial Vehicles 195 290 6465 95 Heavy construction Machinery (HCM) or Earth Moving equipment or Multi Axle vehicle (4 to 6 Axles) 280 420 9290 140 Oversized Vehicles (Seven or more axles) 340 510 11310 170 (iii) The licence for appointment as collection agency was granted to M/s. Eagle Infra India Limited by an order dated 05.09.2012 and the user fee plaza started functioning from 10.09.2012. 9. It appears that in the notice issued on 08.05.2012 inviting bids for procurement of fee collection agency, the respondents mentioned that it was for Madurai to Virudhunagar Km 1.500 to Km 52.300 of N.H.7. Therefore, the grievance of the petitioners is that those who proceed to Srivilliputhur, Rajapalayam and Tenkasi from Madurai who are naturally to take N.H.208 necessarily have to pass through Kappalur Toll Plaza and that though these travellers do not use N.H.7, they are made to pay the same rate. Even to reach Thirumangalam from Madurai one has to necessarily pass through Kappalur Toll Plaza and these unfortunate passengers also pay the Madurai City Municipal Corporation, a toll fee for the outer ring road. Another ground on which the petitioners challenge the collection is that under Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules 2008, a Toll Plaza can be established only at a distance of 10 kms from a municipal or local town area limits. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the location of the Toll Plaza is in violation of the statutory prescription. 10. Therefore, the petitioners contend that the location of the Toll Plaza is in violation of the statutory prescription. 10. Alternatively, one more argument is advanced on the basis of Rule 4 that at the most the respondents are entitled to collect only the proper rate, depending upon the length of the section they use. Rule 4 reads as follows: “4. Base rate of fee:-(1) The rate of fee for use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel constructed through public funded project or private investment project shall be identical. (2) the rate of fee for use of a section of national highway of four or more lanes shall, for the base year 2007-08, be the product of the length of such section multiplied by the following rates, namely :- Type of Vehicle Base rate of fee per km (in Rs) Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 0.65 Light Commercial Vehicle, Light Goods Vehicle or Mini Bus 1.05 Bus or Truck (Two Axles) 2.20 Three axle commercial vehicle 2.40 Heavy Construction Machinery (HCM) or Earth Moving Equipment (EME) or Multi Axle Vehicle (MAV) (four to six axles) 3.45 Oversized Vehicles (seven or more axles) 4.20 11. Yet another argument advanced, especially by Mr. T.S.R. Venkataramana, the petitioner appearing in person is that the provisos to Rule 3(4) entitles three wheelers, tractors as well as two wheelers to be charged only 50% of the fee levied if there was a service road or alternative road. Therefore, the petitioner claims that the same is discriminatory. 12. We have carefully considered the above submissions. Contention touching upon N.H.208 :- 13. The first grievance of the petitioner is that Kappalur Toll Plaza is located at a place where persons travelling for a short distance from Madurai to Thirumangalam as well as persons travelling from Madurai to Srivilliputhur, Rajapalayam and Tenkasi, through N.H.208 are also made to pay the toll, payable by the passengers proceeding in N.H.7. The notification for granting the licence to be appointed as collection agent indicated that what was granted was only a licence to collect toll for passengers using N.H.7. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners that the passengers passing through a section of N.H.7, even to use N.H.208 should not be made to pay this toll. The notification for granting the licence to be appointed as collection agent indicated that what was granted was only a licence to collect toll for passengers using N.H.7. Therefore, it is contended by the petitioners that the passengers passing through a section of N.H.7, even to use N.H.208 should not be made to pay this toll. The petitioners claim that there can be a check post at the interjection of N.H.7 and N.H.208 where persons proceeding to N.H.208, may be exempted from making payment. 14. The parties have filed a sketch showing that N.H.48 running from Trichy crosses Madurai and Thirumangalam and thereafter bifurcates in the form of inverted alphabet 'Y'. One segment becomes N.H.7 and other becomes N.H.208. Therefore, it is clear that persons proceeding to Srivilliputhur, Rajapalayam and Tenkasi etc., will use only a portion of N.H.7. 15. But unfortunately, the power to levy and collect fee, conferred by Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 indicates that the levy could be for the use of any section of National Highway. However, the proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 3 empowers the Central Government by notification to exempt any section of the national highway from the levy of such fee and subject to such condition, as may be specified in the notification. 16. Rule 4(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 which prescribes the base rate of fee per kilo metre, stipulates that the rate of fee for the use of a section of national highway of four or more lanes, shall be the product of the length of such section multiplied by the rates stipulated in the table under sub Rule (2) of Rule 4. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in contending that when the preliminary object of levying fee, was for the use of N.H.7, it is not fair for the respondents to collect toll from the users of N.H.208. 17. The response of the National Highways Authority of India to the above contention is found in paragraphs 14 and 15 of the counter affidavit filed by them. It is claimed therein that the chainage of Kappalur junction is Km 18+000 and the diversion road of Srivilliputhur is Km 25+300. Therefore, according to them, the road users of N.H.208 (Srivilliputhur) have compulsorily to use 7 kms of N.H-7. It is claimed therein that the chainage of Kappalur junction is Km 18+000 and the diversion road of Srivilliputhur is Km 25+300. Therefore, according to them, the road users of N.H.208 (Srivilliputhur) have compulsorily to use 7 kms of N.H-7. The respondents also claim that for N.H.208, no fee is collected despite the fact that a huge amount is spent for the improvement of the stretch in N.H.208. According to the respondents, it is very difficult to identify the vehicles which use the project road and which are going to Srivilliputhur and Rajapalayam. For vehicles registered in Madurai, the respondents claim that a monthly pass is issued for a meagre amount of Rs.200/-and that therefore, there can be no cause for any grievance. 18. But we do not think that the explanation offered by the respondents is satisfactory. As rightly pointed out by the petitioners the Toll Plaza is located at Kappalur, which is in the Madurai – Trichy National Highway. After proceeding from Madurai towards Thirumangalam and after crossing the Toll Plaza, the Highways bifurcate into N.H.7 and N.H.208. The fact that even those who proceed to N.H.208 for reaching the various destinations are compelled to pay toll as though they use N.H.7, is admitted by the respondents. According to the petitioners, the persons who proceed towards N.H.208, use only a small section of N.H.7. Even according to the respondents, they use only 7 kms. 19. But as per the Rules, there must be a distance of about 60 kms from one Toll Plaza to another. Therefore, to say that persons who use just 10% of the total distance are also obliged to pay the same toll appears to be arbitrary and violative of Rule 4. Merely because no fee is collected for N.H.208, it cannot be contended by the respondents that persons who proceed towards N.H.208 should also pay the same amount as persons who proceed in N.H.7. 20. Let us forget for a moment, the injustice caused and hardship meted out to the passengers who proceed to N.H.208. Let us look at the issue only from the point of view of the National Highways Authority of India. Even then the location of Toll Plaza at Kappalur does not appear to benefit the National Highways Authority of India either. In the notification inviting bids for appointing the collection agents, the respondents themselves have mentioned only N.H.7. Let us look at the issue only from the point of view of the National Highways Authority of India. Even then the location of Toll Plaza at Kappalur does not appear to benefit the National Highways Authority of India either. In the notification inviting bids for appointing the collection agents, the respondents themselves have mentioned only N.H.7. Therefore, persons who participated in the bid for bagging the collection agency, would have been tempted to quote a rate commensurate only with the number of vehicles plying in N.H.7. But today, the concessionaire stands to benefit in view of the fact that a lot of persons taking to N.H.208 are also compelled to pay toll at Kappalur. Courtallam which attracts a huge crowd of tourists during the season when the monsoon sets in Kerala, is a place to which one can go only through N.H.208. Similarly, during Sabarimala season, tens of thousands of vehicles go past Kappalur and get diverted to N.H.208. 21. But unfortunately, the respondents have not taken the same into account before issuing the notification inviting bids. At least if the respondents had taken this into account and issued the notification in such a manner as to make it clear that the users of N.H.208 may also become liable to pay the toll fee, many persons would have participated in the tender and the revenue for National Highways Authority of India could have increased manifold. In such an event, we might even have been tempted to uphold the location of the Toll Plaza on the ground that the National Highways Authority of India stands to benefit, thereby promoting public interest. But today at the cost of the users of the N.H.208, the concessionaire alone stands to benefit and hence, the stand taken by the National Highways Authority of India, is contrary to public interest. Contention touching upon Rule 8 : 22. The second contention revolves around Rule 8. Rule 8 reads as follows: “8. But today at the cost of the users of the N.H.208, the concessionaire alone stands to benefit and hence, the stand taken by the National Highways Authority of India, is contrary to public interest. Contention touching upon Rule 8 : 22. The second contention revolves around Rule 8. Rule 8 reads as follows: “8. 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, by-pass or tunnel”. 23. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 entitles the executing authority to establish a toll plaza beyond a distance of 10 kms from a municipal or local town area limit. But there are provisos to sub Rule (1). The first proviso states that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the executing authority may locate a toll plaza within a distance of 10 kms, but in no case within 5 kms of such municipal or local town area limits. But there are provisos to sub Rule (1). The first proviso states that for reasons to be recorded in writing, the executing authority may locate a toll plaza within a distance of 10 kms, but in no case within 5 kms of such municipal or local town area limits. As per the second proviso to sub Rule (1) of Rule 8, a toll plaza may be established within the municipal or town area limits or within a distance of 5 kms from such limits, if a section of the national highway is constructed within municipal or town area limits or within 5 kms from such limits primarily for the use of the residents of such municipal or town area. 24. A careful look at the sub Rule (1) of Rule 8 would show that the main part of Sub Rule (1) contains the actual mandate. The first proviso contains an exception to the Rule. The second proviso contains a further exception to the first exception. Keeping the scheme of Rule 8 (1) in mind, if we look at the factual position in the case on hand, it is seen from the additional counter affidavit of National Highways Authority of India that the toll plaza in question is located within a distance of 1.950 kms from the municipal limits of Thirumangalam. Therefore, the location should actually fall within the second proviso, if it is to be declared as intra vires Rule 8(1). In paragraph 6 of the additional counter affidavit filed by the National Highways Authority of India, they rely upon the second proviso to Rule 8(1). 25. The justification for such location, is sought to be provided by National Highways Authority of India, in paragraph 7 of the additional counter affidavit as follows :- “7. It is respectfully submitted that on the absis of the following features, the Kappalur Toll Plaza was established at K.m 18+652 and as per the approval of the Government of India. 1. Construction of Pedestrian Under Pass at Kappalur at 18/070 kms. 2. Thirumangalam By pass formed for a length of 6.5 kms (20/000 to 26/500) 3. Construction of Vehicular Under Pass for Thirumangalam on Madurai side at 20/500 kms. 4. Cosntruction of Major Bridge at Km 23/500 with 32 m length in Gundar River with Vehicular underpress. (Within 3 km from Thirumangalam Municipal Limit) 5. 2. Thirumangalam By pass formed for a length of 6.5 kms (20/000 to 26/500) 3. Construction of Vehicular Under Pass for Thirumangalam on Madurai side at 20/500 kms. 4. Cosntruction of Major Bridge at Km 23/500 with 32 m length in Gundar River with Vehicular underpress. (Within 3 km from Thirumangalam Municipal Limit) 5. Construction of Vehicular Under Pass for N.H 208-Rajapalayam road at 25/600 kms (within Thirumangalam Muncipal Limit) 6. Construction of Vehicular Under Pass for Melakottai on Virudhunagar side at 26/700 Kms. 7. The land in Thirumangalam Municipality (Sengulam) was acquired and the road has been formed within Thirumangalam Municipality. 8. The vehicles which are coming from Thirumangalam Town can reach Madurai Four laning road only using the under pass constructed by NHAI. Hence, the Kappalur Toll Plaza is located in Correct place as per the National Highways fees determination of Rates and Collection Rules 2008”. 26. As we have pointed out earlier, a Toll Plaza may be established as per the second proviso, to Rule 8(1), within the municipal limits or within 5 kms of the municipal limits, only if the following conditions are satisfied (i) that the section of the national highways is constructed within the municipal limits or within 5 kms from such limits and (ii) that such section of the National Highways is primarily intended for the use of the residents of the municipal or town area. 27. Unfortunately, the respondents have not indicated either in the main counter affidavit or in the additional affidavit as to how the National Highway 7 is intended primarily for the use of the residents of Thirumangalam municipality. It is admitted in paragraph 6 of the additional counter affidavit of National Highways Authority of India that the toll plaza is located at a distance of 1.950 kms from the Thirumangalam municipality limits. Therefore, to fall under the second proviso to Rule 8(1), the respondents should have satisfied themselves that the section of the National Highway which is located within the municipal limits is primarily for the use of residents of Thirumangalam municipality. 28. But unfortunately, there is not even a pleading on the part of the respondents to the effect that the section of the highways constructed within 5 kms of Thirumangalam municipal limit is primarily for the use of the residents of Thirumangalam. 28. But unfortunately, there is not even a pleading on the part of the respondents to the effect that the section of the highways constructed within 5 kms of Thirumangalam municipal limit is primarily for the use of the residents of Thirumangalam. Hence, the location of Toll Plaza does not satisfy the mandate of Rule 8(1) and it does not satisfy the prerequisites under the second proviso to Rule 8(1). 29. As a matter of fact, the specific case of the respondents in paragraph 12 of the additional counter affidavit is that local passes have been issued to people residing within 20 kms from Thirumangalam and its surroundings and that the passes are charged Rs.215/- per month for car users. If the location of the Toll Plaza is saved by the second proviso to Rule 8(1), there was not even a necessity for granting such a concession. This is in view of the fact that the Toll Plaza located within a distance of five kms can be saved only if the Highway is primarily for the use of residents of such municipality. If a section of the highways is constructed primarily for the use of the residents of a municipality or town, there is no rationale in granting the residents a concession in the fee, but charging all others for the benefit of the residents of one locality. In any case, as we have pointed out earlier, the respondents do not claim that the Highway in respect of which the Toll Plaza is located within a distance of 5 kms from municipality limits of Thirumangalam, is primarily for the use of the residents of the municipality. Therefore, we do not think that the location is saved by the second proviso to Rule 8(1). Challenge to Rule 3 : 30. Writ Petition (MD)No.14535 of 2012 is filed challenging the vires of Rule 3. Rule 3 reads as follows: “3. Therefore, we do not think that the location is saved by the second proviso to Rule 8(1). Challenge to Rule 3 : 30. Writ Petition (MD)No.14535 of 2012 is filed challenging the vires of Rule 3. Rule 3 reads as follows: “3. Levy of fees:-(1)The Central Government may by notification, levy fee for use of any section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel forming part of the national highway, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of these rules: Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, exempt any section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel constructed through as public funded project from levy of such fee or part thereof, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification. (2) The collection of fee levied under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, shall commence within forty-five days from the date of completion of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, constructed through a public funded project. (3) In case of private investment project, the collection of fee levied under sub-rule (1) shall be made in accordance with the terms of the agreement entered into by the concessionaire. (4) No fee shall be levied for the use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, by two wheelers, three wheelers, tractors and animal drawn vehicles: Provided that three wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles shall not be allowed to use the section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, where a service road or alternative road is available in lieu of the said national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel: Provided further that where service road or alternative road is available and the owner, driver or the person in charge of a two wheeler is making use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, by-pass or tunnel, as the case may be, he or she shall be charged fifty per cent of the fee levied on a car. Explanation I – For the purposes of this rule,- (a) “alternative road” means such other road, the carriageway of which is more than ten meters wide and the length of which does not exceed the corresponding length of such section of national highway by twenty per cent thereof; (b) “service road” means a road running parallel to a section of the national highway which provides access to the land adjoining such section of the national highway. (5) The fee notified by the Central Government under these rules shall be rounded off and levied in multiple of the nearest rupees five.” 31. The challenge is made on the ground that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution. Rule 3 grants fee exemption to two wheelers, three wheelers, tractors and animal drawn vehicles, when there is no service road or an alternative road. But this concession is not applicable wherever a service road or an alternative road is available. According to the petitioners, there is no rationale or justification for discriminating the four wheelers, even in cases where a service road or an alternative road is available. The petitioner further contends that where there is no service road or alternative road to cross a point, the citizens are compelled to pay a toll fee and this virtually becomes a tax and not a fee. 32. But we do not think that any of the above conditions can be sustained. The vires of a rule can be tested either on the touch stone of the constitutional guarantees or on the touch stone of the rule making power. The petitioner does not challenge Rule 3 on the ground that it is ultra vires the Act or that it was beyond the rule making power of the Central Government. The competence of the Central Government to make the Rule is not no doubt nor in question. 33. However, the rule is challenged on the touchstone of Article 14 that it discriminates. But it is well settled that there are primarily two tests to find out whether a discrimination offends Article 14 or not. They are (i) whether there was a reasonable classification and (ii) whether the classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Four wheelers, certainly form a distinct and separate class, from two wheelers, three wheelers, animal drawn vehicles and tractors. They are (i) whether there was a reasonable classification and (ii) whether the classification has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. Four wheelers, certainly form a distinct and separate class, from two wheelers, three wheelers, animal drawn vehicles and tractors. Therefore, Rule 3 certainly would pass the first test namely that of reasonable classification. It would also pass the second test, in view of the fact that the object sought to be achieved by the classification is to recover to some extent, the cost of the project and the cost of maintenance. The damage and the depreciation that the Highway suffers at the wheels of four wheelers is far greater than the damage and depreciation suffered at the wheels of two wheelers, the three wheelers, and animal drawn vehicles. Insofar as the tractors are concerned, they are primarily intended for use in agriculture and hence, there is an obligation for the State to protect the same. Hence, we do not think that the challenge to Rule 3 is well founded. Challenge to the notification dated 01.05.2012: 34. In the third writ petition, the challenge is to the notification issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The notification has been issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956 read with Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee (Determination rate and Collection) Rules 2008. Since the notification happens to be a subordinate legislation, the validity of the same can also be tested only on the strength of certain established parameters. The petitioner does not challenge the notification either on the ground that it is ultra vires the Act or Rules. No valid ground is taken by the petitioner for challenging the notification. 35. In State of Tamil Nadu Vs. P.Krishnamurthy, (2006) 4 SCC 517 , the Supreme Court enunciated the grounds on which a subordinate legislation can be assailed. Paragraph 15 of the said decision reads as follows :- “Whether the rule is valid in its entirety? 15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. 15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules).” 36. A simple statement that the notification violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution may not be sufficient to quash the notification. As a matter of fact, the base rate of fee prescribed in the notification is in tune with what is stipulated in the table under Rule 4(2). Therefore, we see no reason to entertain the Writ Petition (MD)No.7228 of 2008. 37. In support of the challenge to the validity of the levy of toll fee, it was contended by Mr. T.S.R. Venkataramana, the petitioner appearing in person that though the cost of laying the stretch of N.H.7 is claimed to be Rs.429 Crores, the concessionaire has claimed loss of revenue at Rs.117 Crores per year and that therefore, the levy is unconscionable and amounting to tax. In response to the said contention, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in City Corporation of Calicut Vs. Thachambalath Sadasivan, (1985) 2 SCC 112 where the Supreme Court pointed out that the traditional concept of quid pro quo in a fee has been undergoing a transformation. The Supreme Court pointed out that though the fee must have relation to the services rendered or the advantages conferred, it is not necessary to establish that those who pay the fee must receive direct or special benefit or advantage of the services rendered for which the fee is being paid. But we do not think that the petitioners seriously dispute the fact that the road users receive some benefit. But we do not think that the petitioners seriously dispute the fact that the road users receive some benefit. Therefore, what is levied is only a fee and not a tax. 38. Therefore, in the result-- (i) Writ Petition (MD)No.7228 of 2014 is dismissed. (ii) The challenge to Rule 3 of the National Highways ee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules 2008, made in W.P(MD)No.14535 of 2012 is rejected. (iii) Writ Petition (MD)Nos.13906 of 2012 and 14535 of 2012 are disposed of directing the National Highways Authority of India to shift the Kappalur Toll Plaza, from its present location, to a place near the interjection where N.H.7 and N.H.208 bifurcates, so that there is no violation of the second proviso to Rule 8(1) or at least to ensure that persons who use a small section of N.H.7 for the purpose of proceeding to N.H.208 are not charged the same rate of toll fee as charged for those taking N.H.7 and (iv) The National Highways Authority of India shall take a decision on the above lines within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Until then the respondents shall not collect toll fee from the vehicles proceeding to N.H.208. This can be done by opening a check post near the junction where the N.H.7 and N.H.208 parts and refunding at that check post, the money collected from vehicles taking N.H.208. There will be no impediment for collecting toll fee from vehicles proceeding in N.H.7 itself. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.