The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the logic of charging full toll from commuters who are forced to endure hours-long traffic jams, asking the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) whether a traveller should still pay Rs 150 for a 65-kilometre journey in Kerala that takes nearly 12 hours to complete.
A Bench headed by Chief Justice B R Gavai reserved its judgement on separate pleas filed by the NHAI and concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure challenging the Kerala High Court’s order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara plaza in Thrissur. The High Court had ordered a four-week suspension citing poor road condition and unmanageable traffic on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway-544.
“Why should a person pay Rs 150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end? A road which is expected to take one hour, takes 11 more hours and they have to pay a toll as well,” the Chief Justice remarked. The Bench was informed that the weekend gridlock lasted nearly 12 hours.
Justice K Vinod Chandran rejected the NHAI’s contention that an accident which triggered the traffic block was an “act of God”, pointing out that the lorry had toppled after running into a pothole. Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued that service roads had been provided where underpass work was underway, though monsoon rains had slowed progress. He suggested that a proportionate toll reduction, rather than outright suspension, would be more appropriate.
Also read: Anurag slams NHAI officials for 'irresponsible' NH-3 work
Justice Chandran, however, observed that a 12-hour ordeal “goes well beyond any proportional adjustment”.
Appearing for the concessionaire, senior advocate Shyam Divan said that the firm had properly maintained the 60-km section under its control and blamed work by third-party contractors for the bottlenecks. “My revenue stream cannot be stopped when I am not responsible for the work entrusted to others. The impact on me has already been Rs 5-6 crore in just 10 days,” he argued, describing the High Court order as “grossly unfair.”
The Bench noted that the High Court had allowed the concessionaire to raise any loss claims against the NHAI. Divan replied that the provision was inadequate, as day-to-day maintenance costs were continuing even when toll collection was halted.
Senior advocate Jayant Muthraj, for the original petitioners, said, “It is NHAI’s responsibility to ensure a motorable road,” and added that charging toll under such conditions violated public trust. He referred to the High Court’s remarks describing toll suspension as a “last resort”.
On August 14, the top court had indicated that it was unwilling to interfere with the High Court’s order. The High Court said motorists could not be expected to pay toll when the highway was badly maintained and the flow of traffic severely hampered, adding that failure to maintain smooth passage amounted to a breach of public trust.
Follow us
