Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 250 (ORI)

Kalipada Mishra v. State of Odisha

2016-03-31

B.R.SARANGI, VINEET SARAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, claiming to be a Senior Journalist and a Social Activist, has filed this petition in the nature of a Public Interest Litigation seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus against the opposite parties with regard to the action taken for abolition of the prevailing system of toll collection by demolishing the check gates and further seeking for a direction to restore all the 26 check gates and allow to operate as before. 2. The short facts of the case, in hand, are that the check gates have been established to collect taxes from the commuting vehicles in the inter-State and intra-District borders in order to enhance the revenue collection for the State. But the Senior Officials of the State passed a resolution on 17.2.2016 for abolition of prevailing system of toll collection by demolition of existing check gates by 1.4.2016 and decision has been taken for introduction of interceptor vehicles fitted with GPS for collection of taxes. For development and modernization of the check gates, though huge public money has been spent, because of the decision to abolish the same, there is colossal wastage of public money and it affects the public at large. Hence this petition. 3. Mr. C. Samantray, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that if the check gates are abolished, there is every chance of evasion of taxes, which would cause loss of revenue for the State. For development of four major unified check gates, an amount of not less than 150 crores have been spent. The petitioner has also doubt with regard to the collection of tolls from the thousands of commuting trucks every day by engagement of few interceptor vehicle fitted with GPS. It is also stated that the plan and action for demolition of the gates is being directed vis-à-vis introduction of GST (Goods and Service Tax) system when GST has not seen the light of the day and thus, it is stated that such action cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Mr. It is also stated that the plan and action for demolition of the gates is being directed vis-à-vis introduction of GST (Goods and Service Tax) system when GST has not seen the light of the day and thus, it is stated that such action cannot sustain in the eye of law. 4. Mr. B.P. Pradhan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State per contra states that on the basis of the minutes of the meeting of the senior officials of the State held on 17.02.2016, who have proposed to abolish the check gates w.e.f. 01.04.2016 which is going to be implemented from that date, if this Court intervenes at this stage, it would cause great dislocation when steps have been taken to collect more revenue by adopting new methodology with the change of time. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that the petitioner is objecting with regard to the abolition of the check gates, which are situated either in the inter-State or intra-District borders on the pretext that huge amount has been spent by the Government for its modernization and it will cause loss of revenue to the State. 6. With the change of time if the Senior officials of the State have passed a resolution in its meeting dated 17.02.2016 proposing to abolish the check gates w.e.f. 01.04.2016 and have made alternative arrangement to collect revenue by using interceptor vehicle with GPS , which in no way affect the State in any manner, in that case adoption of new methodology with change of time and technology is a policy decision of the State to augment revenue, cannot be stated to be arbitrary and unreasonable action, so that the Court can interfere with the same. 7. The resolution of the meeting held on 17.2.2016 falls within the domain of policy decision of the executive fiat. Therefore, a matter of policy decision for executive must be left to the considerations of the State Government. 7. The resolution of the meeting held on 17.2.2016 falls within the domain of policy decision of the executive fiat. Therefore, a matter of policy decision for executive must be left to the considerations of the State Government. In State of Rajasthan v. Sevanivartan Karmachari Hitadhikari Samity (1995) 2 SCC 117 , the apex Court held that the wisdom in a public policy of the Government, as such is not within the jurisdiction of the Court unless such policy decision is wholly capricious, arbitrary and whimsical, thereby offending the rule of law as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India or such policy decision offends any statutory provisions of the Constitution. 8. In Kailash Chandra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 6 SCC 562 : AIR 2002 SC 2877 , the apex Court held that any circular issued in pursuance of a policy decision has to pass the test of Articles 14,15 & 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In State of U.P. v. U.P. University Colleges Pensioners Association, AIR 1994 SC 2311 : (1994) 2 SCC 729 , the apex Court held that policy decision is not subject to judicial review unless it is unreasonable or against public interest. 10. In plethora of decisions of the apex Court, matters fall within the realm of policy decision to be taken by the State Government or authority vested with power under any statute, the Court should not interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or contrary to the statutory provisions or arbitrary or irrational or in abuse of power. As such, the position no more remains as res integra. 11. As it appears, the petitioner has not made out a case which requires judicial review by this Court invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Similar question has come up for consideration by this Court in W.P. (C) No. 4581 of 2016 (Sri Amit Kumar Saa Vs. State of Odisha and Others), disposed of on 18.03.2016, wherein this Court taking into consideration Section 74 of the Orissa Value Added Tax Act, 2004 has held that appropriate authority has taken a conscious decision in the matter after considering all the relevant aspects and therefore, dismissed the said writ petition. 12. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition merits no consideration and the same is accordingly dismissed.