### Entitlement to Revenue Loss Refund for Toll Lessees Under Force Majeure and Statutory Provisos

The Petitioner was granted a lease to collect toll at the Baddi-Barotiwala Unit for FY 2023-24 for a bid amount of Rs. 21,72,00,009/-.

In mid-2023, Himachal Pradesh suffered severe natural disasters, including floods and cloudbursts, which destroyed major bridges (such as the Balad River and Charnia bridges) connecting Pinjore and Baddi. This led to traffic diversions and a near-total cessation of vehicular movement at the Petitioner’s toll plaza.

The Petitioner sought a refund for revenue losses under the Toll Announcements 2023-24. An internal inquiry by the Assistant Commissioner (Excise) verified a revenue loss of Rs. 3,15,80,010/- and recommended a refund.

However, Respondent No. 2 (Commissioner) rejected the claim via order dated 22.01.2025, primarily on the grounds that Section 10 of the H.P. Tolls Act only allows refunds if the lease money paid is in excess of the bid amount.

1. Whether a toll lessee is entitled to a refund for revenue loss due to natural calamities under Section 10 of the H.P. Tolls Act, 1975, read with Toll Announcements, even if they have not paid an amount in excess of the original bid money.

2. Whether the Respondent Authority was justified in rejecting the claim based on a police report regarding traffic movement without considering the specific departmental inquiry report quantifying the loss.

The court primarily applied Section 10 of the Himachal Pradesh Tolls Act, 1975, which mandates refunds for losses sustained due to natural calamities or force majeure.

Conditions 2.8.1 and 2.8.2 of the Announcements for Lease of Right to Collect Toll (2023-24), which establish the procedure for a lessee to claim refunds for losses resulting from acts of God.

The principle of reciprocity regarding interest, referring to Condition 2.3.18, which charges lessees 15% interest for payment delays, suggesting the same should apply to the State for refund delays.

The court found the Commissioner’s interpretation of Section 10 of the Act to be "wholly erroneous" and "not justified".

The court reasoned that Section 10 must be read purposefully with the first proviso and the Toll Announcements; requiring a lessee to pay more than the bid amount as a prerequisite for a refund for calamity-related losses would render the relief clause redundant, as such a situation is practically impossible.

Regarding the facts, the court determined that the Commissioner improperly relied on a singular letter from the Superintendent of Police stating traffic was "majorly" unhampered, while ignoring that the same letter admitted traffic was diverted away from the Petitioner's barrier due to bridge damage.

The court noted that the departmental inquiry report specifically quantified the loss and verified it against bank statements, yet was discarded by the Commissioner without valid cause.

Finally, the court held that since the State charges 15% interest for late payments by lessees, the same rate must apply to the State’s monetary obligations to the Petitioner.

The court directed Respondent No. 2 to verify the quantification of the loss (determined as Rs. 3,15,80,010/- in the inquiry report) within two weeks and release the verified amount to the Petitioner with 15% interest per annum from the due date within a further period of two weeks.