Full Bench says road project and 125-month concession ended long ago; no live dispute survives, so referred legal questions under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act will remain open for another case.
Jaipur, Sept. 16, 2026: The Rajasthan High Court has disposed of a long-pending public interest litigation challenging a Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) road project and toll collection arrangement, holding that the matter had become infructuous after the expiry of the construction and concession periods.
A Full Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sameer Jain declined to answer the substantial question of law earlier referred for interpretation of Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951. The Court said constitutional courts should not decide academic, abstract or hypothetical questions when no effective relief can now be granted.
The petition, filed by two advocates from Makrana, had challenged the Manglana-Makrana-Borawar-Bidiyad road project, which was undertaken by the State on a BOT basis. The petitioners had alleged that the delegation of toll collection rights to private entrepreneurs for 125 months was illegal, excessive and contrary to law. They had also sought directions to restructure the toll arrangement, limit recovery to actual investment, and improve monitoring of toll collection and maintenance.
However, the Court noted that the project’s construction period had ended in 2002 and the concession/toll collection period expired on September 27, 2011. Since the contractual arrangement had long ceased to operate, the Bench held that the dispute was no longer a live lis and had become purely academic.
The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents including Sanjeev Coke Manufacturing Co. v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., Bhut Nath Mete v. State of West Bengal, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India, State of Bihar v. Rai Bahadur Hurdut Roy Moti Lal Jute Mills, and Dhartipakar Madan Lal Agarwal, reiterating that courts do not ordinarily render advisory opinions or decide issues that no longer affect the parties.
The Bench also noted that none of the petitioners appeared to argue the matter, and no material was placed before the Court to show any surviving cause of action or executable relief.
Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous, with all legal contentions left open to be considered in an appropriate future case involving a live controversy.
Bottom Line :
Writ petition/Public Interest Litigation challenging BOT road project and toll collection arrangement became infructuous after expiry of construction and concession period; High Court declined to answer referred substantial question of law under Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, holding that constitutional courts should not decide academic or hypothetical questions in absence of a live lis or effective relief.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Section 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Taxation Act, 1951, Indian Tolls Act, 1851, Article 265 of the Constitution of India
Mohd. Sharif v. State of Rajasthan, (Rajasthan)(FB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2985310
