 "Supreme Court declines to stay high court; DND flyover to remain toll-free")
The Supreme Court on Friday declined to stay the Allahabad High Court's order making the Delhi-Noida (DND) flyway toll-free, but it will pass a detailed order later.
The court is breaking for a week-long holiday owing to the Diwali festival and a court order is not likely to be delivered during that period.
The court is breaking for a week-long holiday owing to the Diwali festival and a court order is not likely to be delivered during that period.
A bench presided by Chief Justice T S Thakur heard the appeal moved by the Noida Toll Bridge Company for an hour.
The company, represented by senior counsel A M Singhvi, urged the court to refer the issue of profit and loss to an independent auditor who will submit a report within two months, until which time the toll should be re-imposed and the high court order stayed.
Arguing further, he said that the balance of convenience is in favour of a stay and the company was willing to remit the weekly collection in an escrow account. However, the court did not respond to the offer.
The company, represented by senior counsel A M Singhvi, urged the court to refer the issue of profit and loss to an independent auditor who will submit a report within two months, until which time the toll should be re-imposed and the high court order stayed.
Arguing further, he said that the balance of convenience is in favour of a stay and the company was willing to remit the weekly collection in an escrow account. However, the court did not respond to the offer.
According to Singhvi, work for the 10-km-long eight-lane project had started in 1997 and completed in 2001. After 15 years of working without any complaint, the contract should not be cancelled on the ground that the earning period is over. In fact, the company's revenue was negative for several years, a fact that will be reflected in the company's audit reports for relevant years.
The high court's decision was based on the argument that earnings collected through the toll were twice the amount of its recovery cost. Singhvi, however, pointed it out that the order ignored expenses incurred by the company through interest on loans, depreciation, accountability for accidents and maintenance.
Meanwhile, people who had originally moved the high court against the toll collection intervened and asserted that the company had made huge profits during the past 15 years and the high court was correct in its assessment of the revenues of the company.
