At the insistence of the state advocate general, C J Sawant, the bench then clarified that the stay did not mean the state could not collect toll on the other flyovers.

The bench then admitted the public interest petition filed by the Navi Mumbai Action Committee, Bungalow Plot Owners, Navi Mumbai, citizens D Narsaiyya and Ram Kanwar which challenged the toll on the Sion Panvel highway since it would be severely affecting the residents of Navi Mumbai. Counsel for the petitioners, K K Singhvi argued that the residents were already paying Rs five per trip or Rs eight for 24 hours on the highway since 1992. He argued that thegovernment's notification that would come into effect on July 12 charged Rs 20 per trip per light commercial vehicle and upto Rs 100 for heavy vehicles was unfair. ``On what basis are they charging Rs 20?'' he asked, ``especially when the new flyover is only for leaving the city of Mumbai, and not for going into the city?''

The Chief Justice then asked Sawant on the exercise undertaken by the state government to arrive at the toll amount. Sawant submitted that the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) had calculated the money that would be saved by the motorists by way of petrol and time and had then decided on the amount to be levied as toll. He also added that the state had already collected Rs 35 crore from the toll being charged on the highway. The cost of the highway was Rs 70 crore and the toll collection had started in 1992. As for the flyover scheme, the toll collection is envisaged till 2029.

The bench then perused the powers of the state under the Motor Vehicles Tax Act, 1959where under section 1 (A), the state was allowed to collect toll only to recover the cost of the flyover, subway or any such construction that was being used. The Chief Justice was told that the 55 flyover scheme was being constructed by the MSRDC at a cost of Rs 1,600 crore. ``It is doubtful if such a large cost of the scheme can be collected from people who might not use the other flyovers,'' he remarked.

The bench then directed the state government to file affidavits in the matter which they put up for an expeditious hearing.