M/S K.K. ASSOCIATES vs STATE OF HP AND ORS

2026:HHC:20001
High Court of H.P.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

CWP No. 7857 of 2025
Reserved on : May 12 , 2026
Announced on: May 26 , 2026
( Uploaded on website: 26.05.2026 )

M/S K.K. Associates ...Petitioner

Versus

State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. ...Respondents


Coram:
Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

1
Whether approved for reporting? Yes.

For the petitioner : Mr. Vishal Mohan, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Shriyek Sharda, Advocate,

For the respondents : Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Additional Advocate
General the respondents/State.


Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

Petitioner was operating a toll plaza sanctioned in its
favour by the respondents for Financial Year 2023-24. According to
the petitioner, due to incessant rains & natural disaster that struck
the region in the year 2023, traffic movement across its toll plaza
virtually became naught for several months. Under the applicable Toll
Announcements petitioner requested the respondents for refund of

1
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
2
High Court of H.P.
actual revenue loss suffered by it. Respondent No. 2 –
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise turned down petitioner’s
request. Petitioner, in this writ petition has prayed for quashing of
impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-20) whereby
respondent No. 2 rejected his representation dated 22.04.2024
(Annexure P-14) for refund of revenue loss at Baddi – Barotiwala
Toll Barrier due to natural disaster.
2. Case set up by the petitioner.
2(i) On 14.03.2023 respondent-Excise and Taxation
Department granted permission to the petitioner Firm – being
highest bidder to collect toll at Baddi-Barotiwala Unit for Financial
Year 2023-24 for lease amount of Rs. 21,72,00,009/-. In terms of
the Toll Announcements 2023-24, 20% of the bid money/lease
amount was payable in advance and balance was to be paid in 10
monthly installments. Petitioner had been paying all installments in
time.
2(ii) From June – July, 2023 onwards, the area in question as
also the entire State witnessed heavy rains, cloud bursts, floods etc.
due to which major bridges connecting Baddi i.e. where the toll
plaza was set up, to Pinjore-Baddi-Nalagarh road collapsed,
including bridges at Kiratpur, Maranwala, Pinjore, Lohgarh railway
crossing, Charnia bridge and Balad River Bridge. Damages to these
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
3
High Court of H.P.
bridges completely hampered the traffic inflow towards the site of
petitioner’s toll plaza. The National Highway Authority of India had
also been compelled to suspend collection of toll over its
jurisdictional roads at several places in the State of Himachal
Pradesh. All major roads connecting and entering revenue district
Baddi-Barotiwala-Nalagarh (BBN) were compromised as major
bridges at Maranwala, Pinjore, Lohgarh Railway Crossing and
Charnia Bridge on Pinjore-Baddi National Highway-105 connecting
operational area of petitioner’s toll plaza were either washed away
or rendered unusable for movement of traffic. The District
Administration allowed only private vehicles to ply on the road that
too in case of emergencies.
2(iii) Damages to the bridges, adverse weather conditions
caused huge revenue losses to the petitioner at its toll plaza.
Petitioner entered into correspondence with the State Taxes &
Excise Department, Himachal Pradesh requesting exemption from
paying monthly toll fee. The representations were moved on
11.07.2023, 26.07.2023 & 10.08.2023. Representations yielded no
help from the respondents-Authority. Petitioner’s business took nose
dive in terms of revenue collection as traffic at toll collection points
virtually became nil. Petitioner highlighted its plight again in
representation dated 31.08.2023 making request to the respondents
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
4
High Court of H.P.
to suspend monthly toll fee in view of adverse weather conditions
prevailing in the state. Hearing no response from the respondents,
petitioner instituted CWP No. 6161 of 2023. Vide interim order dated
06.09.2023 passed in the said writ petition, Hon’ble Division Bench
of this Court directed the respondents not to take any coercive
action against the petitioner till the next date of hearing including
blacklisting & forfeiting its security. Respondents were given liberty
to decide petitioner’s representation and in the meanwhile
petitioner was directed to continue to deposit the amount
proportionately. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as
withdrawn on 18.09.2023. Keeping in view the provisions of the
Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975 and the Toll Announcements for
the Financial Year 2023-24 which imposed liability upon the
petitioner to deposit the bid amount, the petitioner deposited the
monthly toll fee but represented the respondents-Department on
11.10.2023 seeking refund for the loss of revenue at Baddi-
Barotiwala toll barrier due to natural disaster. This was in lieu of the
fact that the petitioner-firm had coughed up the requisite lease
amount including penalty levied thereupon for the period of its lease
after making lots of efforts for getting the requisite money through
other sources.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
5
High Court of H.P.
Petitioner followed the aforesaid representation by its letter
dated 17.11.2023 making full disclosure of loss of revenue till
October, 2023. According to the petitioner it had suffered revenue
loss of Rs. 5,03,04,100/-. Petitioner’s term for operating the toll plaza
lapsed on 31.03.2024.
2(iv) Petitioner’s request/representation dated 22.04.2024 for
refund of revenue loss at Baddi-Barotiwala toll barrier was
processed by the respondents-Department. In this regard, in
response to office letter of Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise, Revenue District BBN Baddi, the Additional Commissioner,
State Taxes & Excise, South Zone, Shimla vide office letter dated
14.06.2024 directed for addressing following observations:-
“1. Have you analyzed the movement of vehicle through
the toll during the normal course of period and vehicular
movement data be compared with same period of the
previous year for which the refund has been claimed.
2. The amount of Rs. 5,03,04,100/- seems to be on higher
side as it must be calculated for the days during which
there was total obstruction of traffic movement due to
natural calamity strictly as per applicable conditions
mentioned in the Toll Announcements for the year
2023-24.
3. Have you compared the data of toll collection with the
data of toll collection of the previous year to confirm the
loss claimed.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
6
High Court of H.P.
4. Whether the detail of toll collection has been verified
with the bank account statement connected to the toll
barriers for all online interfaces.”

Petitioner also responded to the aforesaid four
observations vide its letter dated 02.08.2024. Since no further action
was taken by the respondents on petitioner’s prayer for refund of
revenue loss, petitioner instituted CWP No. 11255 of 2024. The said
writ petition was disposed of on 04.10.2024 with direction to
respondent No. 2 (therein)/competent authority to consider and
decide petitioner’s representation seeking refund of revenue loss
in accordance with law within four weeks.
Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, BBN
Baddi as also the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise,
BBN Baddi processed the case of the petitioner for refund of
revenue loss at Baddi-Barotiwala toll barrier due to natural disaster.
An inquiry was conducted into the matter and report was furnished
on 20.12.2024 determining the revenue loss to petitioner to the tune
of Rs. 3,15,80,010/- and recommended its refund to the petitioner.
The inquiry report was forwarded with recommendations
for its acceptance by the Deputy Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise, BBN Baddi to the Additional Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise, SZ, Shimla. The same was further forwarded to the
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
7
High Court of H.P.
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, H.P. on 23.12.2024 who vide
impugned order dated 22.01.2025 rejected petitioner’s prayer for
refund holding that petitioner is not entitled to any relief. It is in the
aforesaid background that petitioner has preferred this writ petition.
3. Submissions
Learned Additional Advocate General defending the
impugned order contended that petitioner’s prayer cannot be
considered in view of Section 10 of the H.P. Tolls Act, 1975.
Revenue loss caused to a toll lessee can be refunded only if he
has paid excess lease amount, not otherwise. Petitioner being
bound by the Act as also the Toll Announcements, cannot wriggle
out from the same and seek compensation for the revenue loss.
Petitioner had neither deposited the lease amount in excess of the
bid money nor any revenue loss was even caused to the petitioner
at the toll plaza as the Superintendent of Police, District Baddi had
reported normal movement of traffic in the area in question. It was
also stated that the petitioner had failed to set up toll plazas at
alternate sites permitted by the respondents.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued for
refunding the amount determined as revenue loss to the petitioner
alongwith interest @ 15% p.a. It was contended that such recourse
was permissible under the Act read with Toll Announcements.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
8
High Court of H.P.
Several documents placed on record were referred to highlight that
petitioner had actually suffered revenue loss and further that these
documents and ground reality had simply been brushed aside by
the respondents by placing uncalled for & undue reliance upon a
communication of Superintendent of Police, District Baddi, to hold
that traffic was not hampered at petitioner’s toll plaza. The letter
addressed by Superintendent of Police Baddi was even otherwise
wrongly interpreted by the respondents for denying refund of
revenue loss to the petitioner. Due to natural disaster, traffic
becoming virtually still due to collapse of bridges connecting
petitioner’s toll plaza, petitioner sustained very heavy revenue losses
which are liable to be refunded to him in view of Toll Announcements
& the Act. Petitioner was not legally authorized to set up toll plaza
on other routes. Prayer was made to allow the writ petition.
4 Consideration
The Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Himachal
Pradesh has rejected petitioner’s application for refund of loss of
revenue on the grounds:-
4(i) First that the refund of loss of revenue claimed by the
petitioner does not fall within the ambit of Section 10 of the Himachal
Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975 (in short ‘the Act’). The said provision reads
as under:-
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
9
High Court of H.P.
“10. Refund. – The Assistant Excise and Taxation
Commissioner or the Excise and Taxation Officer in charge
of the district either suo-moto or on an application shall, in
the prescribed manner, refund to the lessee or any other
person, with the prior approval of the Commissioner, any
amount of lease money paid by such lessee or person
under this Act, if the amount of lease money so paid is in
excess of the amount due from him under this Act: Provided
that refund shall only be allowed to the lessee in the event of
any loss sustained on account of law and order situation,
natural calamity or by acts of God or force majeure:
Provided further that no refund under this section shall be
allowed unless the claim for refund is made within a period
of one year from the date on which such claim accrues.”

In terms of the impugned order the refund can be
claimed under Section 10 of the Act only in those cases where the
lessee has paid lease money in excess of the amount due from him.
Since the petitioner has not paid any amount in excess of the lease
amount/bid money, he cannot be refunded the lease amount
towards revenue loss.
Before discussing Section 10 of the Act and the reasoning
assigned by the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise it would also
be appropriate to extract hereinafter relevant provisions of
Announcements – Allotment For Lease of Right to Collect Toll by
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
10
High Court of H.P.
Auction-cum-Tender under the H.P. Tolls Act, 1975 applicable from
01.04.2023 to 31.03.2024 (period involved in this writ petition):-
“2.3.12 The advance amount equivalent of 20% of the bid
amount/lease amount shall be deposited as under:-
a) 10% of the bid money/lease amount or the amount
directed to be deposited by the Presiding Officer as
‘cash-down payment’ at the time of bidding,
whichever is higher, at the fall of the hammer or at
the time of submission of application for auction;
b) 10% of the bid money/lease amount within 10 days
st
of the auctions or 31 March, 2023 whichever is
earlier.
c) The lessee shall be allowed to operate the toll lease
only if the complete advance amount prescribed
above is deposited by the due date. The toll lease
fee after deduction of the 20 percent advance
payment shall be divided into ten (10) equal
installments so that the entire toll fee is cleared by
th
5 February of the financial year. The toll fee
payable for a particular month shall be deposited
th
into the government treasury by the 5 day of the
subsequent month failing which the concerned
District In-charge shall submit its report to Zonal In-
charge concerned immediately and the
Additional/Joint Commissioner of State Taxes and
Excise In-charge of concerned Zone shall take
appropriate action (recovery of outstanding
amount/cancellation and re-allotment of toll lease,
as the case may be) within 7 days.

In case of cancellation of toll lease, any
advance amount or installments deposited by the
defaulting lessee shall be forfeited.

Provided further that in case the unit is put to
auction and immediate cash down payment actually
made at the fall of the hammer is higher than 20%
or more of the bid money, the highest bidder will not
be required to make a separate deposit equivalent
to 20% under parts (a) and (b) of condition No.
2.3.12.”
… … …
xxx xxx xxx
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
11
High Court of H.P.
2.8.1 In the event of any loss sustained by the toll lessee
on account of law and order situation, natural
calamity or by acts of God, and force majeure the
Dy. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise or the
Asstt. Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise I/C of
the district either suo-moto or on an application
made to him with the prior approval of the
Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise, Himachal
Pradesh may refund any amount of lease money
paid by such lessee.

2.8.2 For obtaining the above relief the affected toll lessee
will file a claim before the Dy. Commissioner of
State Taxes & Excise / Asstt. Commissioner of State
Taxes & Excise I/C of the district along with all
papers as may be necessary to project his cause,
within a period of one year from the date on which
such claim accrues. The Dy. Commissioner of State
Taxes & Excise, In-charge/Asstt. Commissioner of
State Taxes & Excise I/C will make appropriate
inquiry in the matter and if it is concluded that the
toll lessee has really sustained some loss on
account of circumstances mentioned in condition
2.8.1 above, he will send the case along with his
recommendations to the Commissioner of State
Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh through the
Add./Joint Commissioner of State Taxes & Excise
of the zone concerned for prior approval of refund.”

Conditions 2.8.1 & 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements
provide for refund of any amount of lease money paid by the lessee
in the event of any loss sustained by the toll lessee on account of
law & order situation, natural calamity or by acts of God and force
majeure. In such cases, either suo motu or on an application made
to him the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise with the prior approval of Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise is empowered to refund the ascertained amount of
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
12
High Court of H.P.
loss. Condition 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements provide for
mechanism for claiming such loss. The toll lessee has to file claim
before Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes
& Excise alongwith all relevant documents. The claim has to be
preferred within one year from the date on which the cause of action
accrues. The Deputy Commissioner, In-charge/Assistant
Commissioner In-charge, State Taxes & Excise after making
appropriate inquiry in the matter if comes to the conclusion that toll
lessee has indeed sustained loss on account of circumstances
mentioned in condition 2.8.1, he would send the case alongwith his
recommendations to the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise for
prior approval of refund. It is thus apparent that condition 2.8.1
provides for refund of ascertained amount of lease money to the
lessee by the respondents-Department in certain given situations.
On receipt of such claims for refund, the procedure as contemplated
in condition 2.8.2 is required to be followed. For determining the
loss sustained by the toll lessee on account of situations
contemplated in condition 2.8.1 the competent authorities are to
send cases alongwith their recommendations to the Commissioner,
State Taxes & Excise. Thus, it cannot be said that the petitioner is
not entitled to refund of lease amount even if his case is covered by
condition 2.8.1. The argument put forth by the learned Addl.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
13
High Court of H.P.
Advocate General that petitioner had entered into contract with
open eyes with the respondents-Department works both ways. If the
contract is binding for the petitioner it is binding for the respondents
as well. If the petitioner has paid the lease money to the
respondents in terms of the contract, he can also seek its refund in
terms of the conditions of the Toll Announcements provided his case
for refund of revenue loss is covered under the conditions and the
amount liable to be refunded is determined and quantified. Reliance
placed by Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh
– respondent No. 2 upon Section 10 of the Act in rejecting the claim
of the petitioner for refund of the lease amount without considering
the aforesaid conditions of Toll Announcements was not justified.
Section 10 cannot be read in isolation. It is to be read in conjunction
with conditions 2.8.1 & 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements. In case
interpretation given to Section 10 by Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise - respondent No. 2 is to be accepted this would mean that
almost in no case the toll lessee would be entitled for refund of
revenue loss even if his case is admitted to be covered under
condition 2.8.1 of Toll Announcements as it would be a very rare
scenario where toll lessee would deposit lease amount/bid amount
in excess to the amount due from him in terms of the contract. There
cannot be a situation where toll lessee would deposit amount in
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
14
High Court of H.P.
excess to bid/lease money. Such excess deposit, if made by a toll
lessee would be a mistake on his part and he can certainly claim the
amount back not as a refund but as his legal right. It is also to be
seen that in terms of first proviso to Section 10 of the Act, refund is
admissible to the lessee in the event of loss sustained on account of
law & order situation, natural calamity or by acts of God or force
majeure. The second proviso to Section 10 limits the period for
seeking refund to one year from the date of accrual of cause of
action. The provisos to Section 10 are in sync with conditions 2.8.1
& 2.8.2 of the Toll Announcements. Conjoint and purposeful
interpretation of Section 10 read with conditions 2.8.1 & 2.8.2 can
lead to the only inference that it is not necessary for the lessee to
have deposited bid amount in excess to the agreed lease amount in
order to claim refund for the loss sustained on account of law &
order situation, natural calamity or by acts of God and force majeure.
4(ii) Second reason for rejecting petitioner’s claim for refund of
the revenue loss, assigned by the Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise, H.P., is a letter dated 12.09.2023 of the Superintendent of
Police, Police District Baddi. On the basis of the contents of this
letter the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise has observed that
that there was no major traffic hampering due to rains in Police
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
15
High Court of H.P.
District Baddi, therefore, condition 2.8.1 cannot even be invoked by
the petitioner.
The letter dated 12.09.2023 addressed by the
Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi was in response to
the letter dated 06.09.2023 of Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise,
H.P. The contents of the letter dated 12.09.2023 are as under:-
“ Subject:- Information Regarding Status of Vehicular
Traffic moving towards Baddi-Barotiwala.
Sir,
Kindly, refer to your office letter No. EXN-SZ-
Toll (3)-2023-24-5761 dated 06.09.2023, on the subject cited
above.
In this regard, it is submitted that majorly no
traffic was hampered/affected due to rain in this Police
District. As intimated by the members of truck union, Baddi
there was no decline in the numbers of vehicles which were
exited from Union Baddi to other States during the months of
July and August, 2023. Though they have been using
alternate routes, due to the damage of the Toll barrier
bridge, Baddi, the traffic was diverted via Barotiwala to Baddi
for smooth regulation.
Submitted for favour of kind perusal please. ”

The conclusion derived by the Commissioner, State Taxes
& Excise from the above letter is wholly erroneous. In terms of the
said letter: (i) Majorly no traffic was hampered/affected due to rains
in Police District Baddi; (ii) Members of the truck union Baddi had
intimated no decline in the number of vehicles that exited from
Baddi to other States during the months of July - August, 2023,
though they used alternate routes due to damage of the toll barrier
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
16
High Court of H.P.
bridge, Baddi; (iii) Traffic was diverted via Barotiwala to Baddi for
smooth regulation.
Significantly, letter dated 12.09.2023 addressed by the
Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi was not put to the
petitioner. Petitioner’s response to this letter was not called for. The
letter was straightaway relied upon by the Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise for passing the impugned order. Even if infraction of
principles of natural justice, denial of opportunity to the petitioner to
respond to letter dated 12.09.2023 is ignored then also the said
letter itself acknowledges damage to toll barrier bridge Baddi and for
this reason diversion of traffic via Barotiwala to Baddi by the District
Administration. The letter records that vehicles belonging to Baddi
Truck Union had to use alternate routes due to damage of toll barrier
bridge, Baddi. This is the entire case of the petitioner that there had
been extensive damages to the bridges connecting Pinjore-Baddi-
Nalagarh. That there had been traffic diversions bypassing
petitioner’s toll plaza. That because of traffic diversions, petitioner
suffered loss of revenue at its toll plaza Baddi. The contents of the
letter have not been appreciated in correct perspective by the
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise. In fact, report prepared by
Assistant Commissioner (Excise) & Deputy Commissioner (Excise),
BBN Baddi (Annexure P-18) also refers to complete washing away
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
17
High Court of H.P.
of major bridges connecting Baddi from adjoining areas due to
heavy rains. Relevant portion of the report reads as under:-
“Report regarding Refund for the loss of revenue at Baddi/
Barotiwala Toll Barriers due to natural disaster.

In reference to the worthy Additional Commissioner
State Taxes & Excise SZ Shimla vide office letter No. EXN-
SZ-Toll(3)-2024-25- 3056 dated 14.06.2024 on the subject
cited above. Dy. Commissioner State Taxes & Excise BBN
Baddi has recommended refund/compensation vide letter
No. EXN-BBN-Baddi-Toll/2023-24-3698- dated 24.05.2024
for Rs. 5,03,04,100.00 in favour of K.K. Associated Baddi for
the year 2023-24 accrued due to natural disaster. In
reference to the above recommendation worthy Additional
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise SZ, Shimla has made
following observations:

Observations Reply regarding observations
1. Have you analysed
the movement of
vehicles through the
toll during the normal
course of periods and
vehicular movement
data be compared with
same period of the
previous year for which
the refund has been
claimed?

This office has not analysed any
movement of vehicles through the toll
during normal course of period and no
vehicular movement data is available
with the department to compare the
same with previous year toll collection.
The recommendation of refund has only
made on the basis of application filed by
the Toll lessee. The Toll lessee has
assigned the reason that 3 major
bridges connecting Baddi with
Chandigrah and Panchkulla has
collapsed and heavy vehicles
movement was diverted towards
Derrowal barrier via Ropar resulted loss
of toll collection to the lessee to the tune
of Rs. 50304100/-.
2. The amount of Rs.
5,03,04,100/- seems to
be on higher side as it
must be calculated for
the days during which
there was total
obstruction of traffic
movement due to
natural calamity strictly
as per applicable
conditions mentioned in
the Toll
The amount of Rs. 5,03,04,100.00
has been assessed on the basis of
application dated 22.04.2024 submitted
by the Toll Lessee. In this regards the
Toll Lessee has stated that the Toll
collection has been decreased from the
month of July onwards due to damage
of major roads connectivity towards
Baddi due to heavy rain and natural
disaster. The month wise collection as
provided by the Lessee was as under:
April -1,91,91,900/-
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
18
High Court of H.P.
Announcements for the
year 2023-24.
May-1,94,32,630/-
June-1,91,86,940/-
July-90,05,960/-
August-1,02,62,560/-
Sept-1,08,68,390/-
Oct-1,47,04,370/-
Nov-1,40,78,710/-
Dec-1,61,30,690/-
Jan-1,62,91,400/-
Feb-1,63,04,360/-
Mar-1,67,54,230/-
The figures have been supported
by the Bank Statement and daily
collection register prepared by the
Toll Lessee on his own. The main
deficit on account of toll collection
has been observed in the month of
July, August and September 2023 due
to damaged roads from Pinjour to
Baddi. It is pertinent from the reports
shared in newspapers by state
authorities that due to heavy rainfalls
the major bridges connecting to Baddi
from the area adjoining Haryana has
been completely washed away.
Haryana Government and Himachal
State government have made
strenuous efforts to normalise the
traffic through construction of
temporary bridges on the Balad river
and Charnia River. The roads remains
complete close for 10 days w.e.f.
09.07.203 to 19.07.2023. After
20.07.2023 Heavy, medium and light
vehicles were continue on way
towards Baddi/Barotiwala, however
multi excel vehicle were not plying
through the temporary bridges. In this
regards clarification has been sought
from the Assistant Engineer HPPWD
Sub Division Baddi with remarks that
Baddi/Barotiwala Sai Road remained
closed for heavy traffic from dated
09.07.2023 to 19.07.2023. The roads
towards Barotiwala, Shapur-
Gorkkhnath Temple and Mandhala
were in use for the vehicles coming
from Chandigrah Siswan road for
heavy, medium & light vehicles.
Major loss to the Lessee has been
occurred in the month of July to Nov.
The lease has been granted for Rs.
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
19
High Court of H.P.
21,72,00,009/- for the year 2023-24.
The expected fees for the month of July
to Nov. is Rs. 5,43,00,000/- The Toll
Lessee has collected Rs. 5,89,19,990/-
for the month of July to Nov 2023, the
actually loss to the lessee occurred for
Rs. 3,15,80,010/-. Keeping in view the
revenue loss Rs. 3,15,80,010/- be
refunded on account of natural disaster
to the Toll Lessee.
3 . Have you compared
the data of toll
collection with the data
of toll collection of the
previous year to
confirm the loss
claimed?
No such data has been compared by
this office with the previous year as no
such data is available with this office.
4 . Whether the detail of
toll collection has been
verified with the bank
account statement
connected to the toll
barriers for all online
interfaces.
The Toll Lessee has submitted bank
statement regarding the collection of
Toll Fees. The daily collection of the toll
fees has been deposited in account No.
549001010051278 maintained in Union
Bank of India Baddi. The bank
statement alongwith daily collection has
been verified and fund in accordance
with the daily collection register.

Sd/-
AC Excise BBN
18.12.2024 ”

The above report also quantifies the damages suffered by
the petitioner. This report has also not been considered
appropriately by the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, in
accordance with law. Damage to the bridges linking Pinjore – Baddi
– Nalagarh has been established. Damage to the bridge at
petitioner’s toll plaza has also been demonstrated. Traffic diversion
bypassing petitioner’s toll plaza has also been proved on record.
The Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise has wrongly brushed
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
20
High Court of H.P.
aside the report, only taking into consideration the letter of
Superintendent of Police Baddi.
4(iii) The report regarding refund of revenue loss at petitioner’s
toll plaza prepared by Assistant Commissioner, State Taxes &
Excise as extracted above quantifies the actual revenue loss
suffered by the petitioner and recommends its refund. The procedure
adopted is in sync with conditions 2.8.1 & 2.8.2 [extracted in para
4(i) above]. As per these conditions in the event of loss sustained by
the toll lessee on account of law & order situation, natural calamity
or by acts of God and force majeure, the affected toll lessee will file
a claim before the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner,
State Taxes & Excise within a period of one year from the date of
accrual of cause of action. The concerned Officers of State Taxes &
Excise would make proper inquiry into the matter. If upon inquiry
they conclude that the toll lessee has really sustained loss on
account of circumstances mentioned in condition 2.8.1 they will send
their recommendations to the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise
for approval of the same.
In view of the report of the Assistant Commissioner, State
Taxes & Excise dated 18.12.2024 (Annexure P-18) it is obvious that
petitioner – toll lessee had sustained revenue loss on account of
natural calamity etc. The reasons assigned by the toll lessee for
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
21
High Court of H.P.
suffering loss due to damages caused to major bridges connecting
Baddi with Panchkula & Nalagarh have been affirmed in the report.
Actual damage sustained by the toll lessee has also been quantified
in the report. However, the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise
discarded the report of officials of State Taxes & Excise by wrongly
and heavily relying upon as also misinterpreting a single letter of
Superintendent of Police, Police District Baddi.
4(iv) During hearing of the case, learned Additional Advocate
General pointing out para -5 of preliminary submissions of the reply
submitted that petitioner had failed to establish toll barriers at Kalu
Jhanda, Khudabaksh Chowk, Bagguwala & Sansiwala bridge,
therefore, petitioner himself is responsible for suffering revenue loss
if any as claimed by it.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner takes an
objection and validly so that as per condition No. 1.4 of the annual
toll Announcements for the Financial Year 2023-24 petitioner had
been granted toll unit at a specified location of Baddi – Barotiwala
and not at any other place, therefore, petitioner could not have set
up its toll unit at any other place.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner also urged that
revenue loss suffered by the petitioner as quantified by the Assistant
Commission, State Taxes & Excise in its report dated 18.12.2024 is
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
22
High Court of H.P.
liable to be refunded to it alongwith interest @ 15% from the due
date. For seeking interest, reliance has been placed upon following
condition 2.3.18:-
“2.3.18 In the event of his failure to pay an installment or
part thereof of the lease money by the due date the
lessee shall pay interest on the unpaid amount
@15% per annum.”

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner justifiably raised the above
issue as in the event of any delay on part of the petitioner in paying
the lease installment, 15% interest would have been applicable and
charged from the petitioner, therefore, this condition should be
applied vice versa also i.e. in case respondents fail to discharge
their monetary obligation of refund under the Toll Announcements,
petitioner would be entitled to interest @ 15% p.a.
5. In view of above discussion, this writ petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure P-20) passed by
the Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise, Himachal Pradesh –
respondent No. 2 is set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to refund of
revenue loss suffered by it at 15% interest p.a. The quantification of
the petitioner’s revenue loss as determined in the report dated
18.12.2024 (Annexure P-18) by Assistant Commissioner & Deputy
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise has not been verified by the
Commissioner, State Taxes & Excise in terms of condition 2.8.2 of
::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS

2026:HHC:20001
23
High Court of H.P.
Toll Announcements for the Financial Year 2023-24. Therefore,
Commissioner State Taxes & Excise – respondent No. 2 is directed
to verify the quantification of the actual loss as determined in report
at Annexure P-18 in accordance with law within a period of two
weeks from today. The amount quantified as revenue loss suffered
by the petitioner be released in its favour with interest @ 15% p.a.
from the due date within further period of two weeks from the date of
verification of the claim.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand
disposed of.

Jyotsna Rewal Dua,
Judge
(PK)
May 26 , 2026

::: Downloaded on - 26/05/2026 18:01:36 :::CIS