Case Law Details
Vinod Kumar Malik Vs State of Himachal Pradesh and others (Himachal Pradesh High Court)
SHIMLA – The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has stepped in to provide interim relief to a toll contractor facing a severe financial crunch after the state government significantly slashed toll rates immediately after the contract commenced.
A division bench comprising Justice Vivek Singh Thakur and Justice Ranjan Sharma issued notices to the State of Himachal Pradesh and directed that the petitioner’s contract not be canceled, provided specific interim payments are met.
Case Background: The Toll Rate Reduction
The matter arose from a petition filed by Vinod Kumar Malik against the State of Himachal Pradesh and others (CWP No. 8672 of 2026).
According to the petitioner, the Garamoura Toll Barrier in District Bilaspur was allotted to him for a massive tender amount of Rs. 33,53,19,070/-, which officially came into operation on April 1, 2026. However, just a day later, on April 2, 2026, the state government issued a notification drastically reducing the toll rates across multiple vehicle categories :
Passenger vehicles: Reduced from Rs. 130/- to Rs. 100/-.
Light commercial vehicles: Reduced from Rs. 600/- to Rs. 320/-.
Goods vehicles: Reduced from Rs. 900/- to Rs. 570/-.
The petitioner argued that he had already invested heavily in the infrastructure based on the higher fee structure originally outlined in the floated tende.
Following the sharp reduction in projected revenue, the contractor submitted a representation to the authorities requesting a reconsideration of the decision and a revision of the annual tender license fee.
Financial Hardship and Legal Precedents
Represented by Advocate Mr. Yashpal (appearing vice Mr. Rakesh Sharma), the petitioner highlighted that a total sum of Rs. 10,73,02,359/- along with an additional Rs. 1,70,13,510/- had already been deposited against the tender. He contended that the mandated monthly installment of Rs. 1,70,13,510/- had become unsustainably high due to the rate cuts.
The petitioner also drew attention to a demand notice issued by the authorities on May 23, 2026, requiring documentary proof of pending toll fees for April 2026, alongside Tax Collected at Source (TCS) and a 12% FDR.
To support his case for interim relief, the counsel cited a similar ongoing matter—M/s Rohit Kumar vs. State of H.P. and others (CWP No. 7509 of 2026)—where the High Court had granted a 30% benefit to a contractor under similar circumstances, subject to the deposit of pending fees.
State’s Response: Evaluation Committee Formed
Appearing on behalf of the state, Additional Advocate General Mr. Ramakant Sharma waived the service of notice. He informed the court that the government was actively reviewing the situation. Following the petitioner’s initial grievances, a committee was constituted on April 7, 2026, to formally assess the demands and the matter remains under active consideration.
Court’s Directives and Interim Order
Acknowledging the financial crunch, the petitioner expressed a willingness to pay an interim amount of Rs. 1,87,77,868/- against the monthly demand [source: 1].
Taking the circumstances into account, the High Court issued the following interim directions:
For the months of April and May 2026, the petitioner must pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,87,77,868/- per month (if not already deposited).
The same amount of Rs. 1,87,77,868/- must also be deposited for the upcoming month of June 2026.
If these payments are successfully made, the state authorities are restrained from canceling the toll contract until further orders.
The government-appointed committee has been directed to make a final decision on revising the tender price as expeditiously as possible.
The High Court has listed the case for its next consideration on June 30, 2026.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT
Notice. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice on behalf of respondents.
2. Inter alia, it is contended that the Garamoura Toll Barrier, District Bilaspur, was allotted to the petitioner for a tender amount of Rs.33,53,19,070/-, which was to come into operation w.e.f. 1st April, 2026. Vide notification dated 2nd April, 2026 [Annexure P-7], the rates for passenger vehicles were reduced from Rs.130/- to Rs.100/-, for light commercial vehicles from Rs.600/- to Rs.320/-, and for goods vehicles from Rs.900/- to Rs.570/-. Resultantly, a representation was made to reconsider the decision and revise the annual tender licence fee, as a huge amount had already been invested in the infrastructure on the basis of the fee structure provided in the tender floated.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the representation (Annexure P-8 at pages 77 to 80) to submit that the petitioner has already deposited a sum of Rs.10,73,02,359/- and Rs.1,70,13,510/- against the said tender and that the monthly instalment of Rs.1,70,13,510/- was on the higher side. A request has been made to revise and update the tender price. It has beenfurther submitted that notice dated 23rd May, 2026 [Annexure P16] has been issued for deposit of the documentary proof regarding the pending toll fee for the month of April, 2026 alongwith (TCS) Income Tax and FDR @ 12%. It is submitted that, in similar circumstances, in CWP No. 7509 of 2026 titled as M/s Rohit Kumar (sole proprietorship) vs. State of H.P. and others, interim order dated 14.05.2026 was passed, whereby 30% benefit was granted subject to deposit of the pending fee.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that, in pursuance to the said communication, a committee was constituted on 7th April, 2026 to assess the demand of the petitioner and the matter is under consideration.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is willing to pay Rs.1,87,77,868/- in the interim against the monthly demand, and despite the additional amount having already been deposited, on account of financial crunch caused by the reduction, it would not be possible for the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount
. 6. In aforesaid circumstances, till the next date, for the months of April and May, 2026, the petitioner shall pay the outstanding amount of Rs.1,87,77,868/- per month, if not already deposited. Similarly, for the month of June, 2026, he shall also deposit Rs.1,87,77,868/-. In case the needful is done, then till further orders, the contract shall not be cancelled. In the meantime, the committee shall take a decision as expeditiously as possible.
7. List for consideration on 30.06.2026.
Author Bio
