Dsc-Viacon Ventures ... v. Lal Manohar Pandey (S)

Factual and Procedural Background

The proceedings stem from allegations that the petitioner-company, which collects toll on the Raipur–Durg road, failed to repair a 26 km stretch of that highway. Respondent No. 1 had approached the High Court complaining about the poor condition of the road, leading to the impugned High Court order now under consideration. During the present hearing, the Supreme Court* noted two parallel procedural developments: (i) respondents sought additional time to file counter-affidavits, and (ii) questions arose regarding the petitioner’s compliance with an earlier order of 6 January 2015 that required depositing toll collections in a bank account.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the petitioner-company has complied with the Court’s order dated 6 January 2015 regarding the deposit of toll revenue in a designated bank account.
2. How the actual physical condition of the Raipur–Durg road should be ascertained so that appropriate directions can be issued on repairs and future toll collection.

Arguments of the Parties

Respondent No. 1’s Arguments

• The undertaking recently filed by the petitioner does not clarify whether toll amounts are in fact being deposited in a bank account, thereby breaching the 6 January 2015 order.
• The road remains in poor condition; neither the State authorities nor the Union of India have taken meaningful remedial action.

Petitioner’s Arguments

• An affidavit by the petitioner’s authorised signatory states that all toll collections are deposited in State Bank of Patiala, Raipur, in the specified account number.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court first addressed the alleged non-compliance with its earlier order on toll revenue. Observing that the petitioner had produced an affidavit indicating bank deposits, the Court required a concrete statement of account to verify the deposits and directed that a copy be supplied to opposing counsel.

Turning to the substantive grievance about road maintenance, the Court noted that existing assertions about the highway’s condition were not supported by an on-site inspection report. Recognising that any further orders concerning toll collection or mandated repairs must rest on accurate data, the Court constituted a three-member committee comprising:

• Mr. Arvind Shrivastava, Former District Judge, Raipur (Chairman);
• The Chief Engineer in charge of the local NHAI region; and
• The Chief Engineer, Public Works Department, State of Chhattisgarh.

The committee is empowered to:

• Conduct a physical inspection of the 26 km stretch;
• Assess the current condition of the road;
• Identify the nature and extent of repairs required;
• Estimate repair costs and ascertain whether any repairs have already been undertaken;
• Seek technical assistance from specialised agencies if needed.

Representatives of both the petitioner-company and respondent No. 1 may be associated with the inspection, provided they do not impede the process. The committee is to submit its report within four weeks of receiving the Court’s order.

Holding and Implications

ORDER: (1) Respondents are granted three weeks to file counter-affidavits. (2) The petitioner-company must file a detailed bank statement evidencing deposits of toll revenue and furnish a copy to opposing counsel. (3) A three-member committee is appointed to inspect the Raipur–Durg road, estimate required repairs and costs, and file a report within four weeks. (4) The matter will be listed immediately after the report is received.

Implications: The decision establishes a fact-finding mechanism rather than laying down new legal precedent. It ensures financial transparency regarding toll revenues and seeks an objective assessment of the highway’s condition to inform future judicial directions affecting both toll collection and infrastructure repair obligations.