Delhi HC dismisses PIL claiming toll contractor embezzlement of Environment Compensation Charge funds

Delhi High Court dismisses a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) The petition alleges that officials of the municipal corporation, as well as the present and previous toll tax contractor of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (now MCD) had cheated and committed the theft of the government exchequer . The petition was also fined Rs 1 lakh by the bench .

New Delhi, November 24: The Delhi High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) on Thursday, alleging that officials of the municipal corporation, as well as the present and previous toll tax contractor of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation (now MCD), had cheated and committed the theft of the government exchequer worth more than Rs 5,000 crore.The appeal also demanded that a five-member committee be formed by a retired judge of the court or the Supreme Court to find The petitioner was also fined Rs 1 lakh by the bench, arguing that the present and former toll tax contractor of the South Delhi Municipal Corporation has committed serious misuse of public funds in Delhi to government agencies, and that the collected funds will be used to curb air pollution in Delhi, preserving the environment.According to petitioner Jitender Singh, Director JMJ Buildcon Private Limited, the municipal corporation had awarded to a private firm the contract for Toll Tax Collection from commercial vehicles entering Delhi in the amount of Rs 1,206 crore per year.According to the petitioner, the contract period was for a 5 year period from 2017-2022.

Later, the JMJ stafftoll team deployed in the field discovered that the private company that signed the 5-year contract is reportedly involved in the theft of toll tax amount with the help of one another, according to the charge.The ECC collection is allegedly being carried out in free lanes by a private company stafftoll contractor.According to the petitioner, no ECC and Toll Tax collection can be made from free lanes as per the terms and conditions of the deal.Despite this, the same traffic is being collected from free lanes, violating the terms and conditions of the deal and bypassing the orders of this Court, the petitioner explained, the petitioner said, and that the SDMC and the Technical company did not properly install the surveillance cameras in free lanes, but that the Commissioner, SDMC, took no action on the complaint against the culprits.

.
.
.
.