Judgment : R. Mahadevan, J. 1. Aggrieved over the collection of toll fee, a group of educational institutions, had filed a batch of Writ Petitions. Among them, the appellant is one of the petitioners therein in W.P. (MD).No.11890 of 2013. The learned Judge had dismissed all the Writ Petitions holding that the respondents were justified in collecting the toll fee. As a result, the appellant has come up with this Writ Appeal. 2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, are as follows:- A batch of Writ Petitions were filed by the educational institutions that the toll fee collected by the respondents was not in accordance with the rules and regulations framed thereunder. According to them, their educational institutions run buses to the benefit of the Students Community, but in the toll plaza, they were not treated as educational institutions operating buses, though they were originally treated as such. It was the contention of the appellant that the third respondent therein demanded tariff as though they were regular ordinary buses. In fact, the third respondent was collecting a sum of Rs.1,000/-p.m. upto 2012, treating the appellant as an educational institution. But, since the third respondent had refused to collect such charge and demanding more amount, a batch of writ petitions came to be filed. 2.1. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents took a plea before the learned Judge that the concession for toll fee was applicable to the Schools and not for the College, more so, the appellant institution was not an aided college and they were all Self-financing Colleges. Therefore, the demand to collect Rs.3,915/- per month as against Rs.1,000/- per month was very meager and that could not be found fault with. In fact, the third respondent had committed a mistake by collecting only a sum of Rs.1,000/-and that could not be put against the respondents for ever. In fact, because of such mistake committed by the collecting agency, the respondents did not demand the enhanced rate during the previous years. However, only for the ensuing years, as per the present notification, the amount was sought to be collected. According to the respondents, they were well within the rules framed under law to raise this amount. In fact, because of such mistake committed by the collecting agency, the respondents did not demand the enhanced rate during the previous years. However, only for the ensuing years, as per the present notification, the amount was sought to be collected. According to the respondents, they were well within the rules framed under law to raise this amount. Above all these things, the respondents also pointed out that in Tamil Nadu, excepting the petitioner institutions, all other institutions were paying the entire amount, as fixed by the authorities concerned. The rate fixed only at Rs.3,915/-, which was reasonable and therefore, the arguments of the petitioner could not be accepted. 2.2. After hearing both sides and by relying upon an identical order dated 14.12.2012, in WP.Nos.29796, 30126 to 30128, 30168, 30591, 31387, 31537, 31688, 32164, 33304 and 33321 of 2012 etc batch., and also relying upon the various Supreme Court judgments reported in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Favourite Industries, (2012) 7 SCC 153 , CCE v. Rukmani Pakkwell Traders, (2004) 11 SCC 801 , Compack (P) Ltd. v. CCE, (2005) 8 SCC 300 , (SCC p. 306, para 20), CCE v. Bhalla Enterprises, (2005) 8 SCC 308 , and CCE v. Mahaan Dairies, (2004) 11 SCC 798 , the learned Judge had rejected the claim of the appellant. Thus, the appellant is before this Court. 3. Among the other contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, the primary contentions are four fold in this Writ Appeal. They are:- 1. The toll fee in question arrived at by the respondents is not in accordance with the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder. 2. Since the schools as well as the colleges have been imparting education to the Students Community, the concession extended to the schools to be extended to the colleges also. 3. All along the respondents were collecting Rs.1,000/-vide reference dated 26.10.2009 issued by them. However, all of a sudden, it was increased to Rs.3,915/- without any basis. 4. Finally, the learned counsel seeks liberty of this Court to challenge the present tariff of Rs.3,915/- also, on the ground that the forumula adopted by the respondents is illegal and unresaonable. 4. 3. All along the respondents were collecting Rs.1,000/-vide reference dated 26.10.2009 issued by them. However, all of a sudden, it was increased to Rs.3,915/- without any basis. 4. Finally, the learned counsel seeks liberty of this Court to challenge the present tariff of Rs.3,915/- also, on the ground that the forumula adopted by the respondents is illegal and unresaonable. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that but for the mistake committed by the respondents by collecting Rs.1,000/-way back in the year 2009, as toll fee for the College buses, the said benefits cannot be extended eternally in view of various factors. When the notification is clear that the benefits is only for the schools, by any stretch of imagination, it cannot be constured for the college also. He further submitted that the present revised rate is to be effected only from 01.09.2014. In that way, the appellant is getting benefited to a great extent. Since the mistake is on the part of the respondents in fixing the tool fee for the College, they are not demanding the arrears of the toll fee from the appellant, till 30.08.2014. When the respondents have come forward with clear hands, this appellants cannot turn around to say that they would pay only Rs.1,000/- per month for ever, that too, the appellant is a Self-financing College. Such contention has been elaborately dealt with by the learned Judge and it does not warrant any interference from this Court. Therefore, this Writ Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. As far as the first and third points raised by the appellant are concerned, even according to the appellant they were paying Rs.1000/-per month as toll fee for the usage of the road of the respondents from 26.10.2009. If the forumula adopted by the respondents is given effect to, in reality, the appellant will have to pay more tool fee amount than what is demanded by the respondents now. Therefore, prima facie, we are rejecting those two contentions. As far as the third contention, in the case on hand, the notification grants discounted rates only to school buses carrying school students and not to colleges and other educational institutions. Therefore, there is a specific exclusion in respect of other institutions. Therefore, prima facie, we are rejecting those two contentions. As far as the third contention, in the case on hand, the notification grants discounted rates only to school buses carrying school students and not to colleges and other educational institutions. Therefore, there is a specific exclusion in respect of other institutions. The notification, in the light of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, has to be strictly interpreted and when the words in the notification are clear and unambiguous, there cannot be any other manner of interpretation. Therefore, the third contention also fails. The last contention also has no legs to stand for the reason that unless they challenge the original tariff fixed by the respondents, they cannot challenge the present tariff on a piece-meal basis. It is to be noted that, in the present appeal, the respondents went to the extent of forgoing the earlier arrears and they have come forward to demand only from 01.09.2014. When such is the position, that can never be found fault with by the appellant on the ground that the present tariff is not as per the formula. 6. For the foregoing reasons and in view of the judgments relied on by the learned Judge for arriving at such definite conclusion to the effect that the respondents are entitled to collect the toll fee, as challenged in this Writ Appeal, we are of the firm view that the reasons adduced by the learned Judge are cogent and reasonable and it does not require any interference by this Court. 7. In the result, the writ appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.