People cannot be asked to pay toll fees without an "unhindered, safe and regulated access" to highways, the Kerala High Court ruled on Wednesday as it suspended toll collection on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of NH 544 for four weeks.
The high court's ruling came in light of writ petitions against the toll collection on the stretch. The batch of pleas alleged there was heavy traffic owing to construction work, and improper maintenance of the service road.
Taking note of the pleas, a division bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Harisankar V Menon said, "...we order that the collection of user fees shall be suspended forthwith for four weeks, and we further order that the central government shall take appropriate decisions within the above period addressing the concern and grievance of the public...".
The high court bench said that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was responsible for ensuring smooth traffic on the roads, highlighting the importance of public trust. "The moment it (public trust) is breached or violated, the right to collect toll fees from the public created through statutory provisions cannot be forced on the public," the court was quoted as saying by news agency PTI.
Public trust over agreement
As the court suspended toll collection on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch, the NHAI argued that user fee collection was a matter of contract and stopping it may have consequences under the contract law.
{{/usCountry}}As the court suspended toll collection on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch, the NHAI argued that user fee collection was a matter of contract and stopping it may have consequences under the contract law.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the contention, the high court bench said, "If the public is not receiving the intended benefit of road usage in return for the user fees imposed, the State cannot compel payment of such a fee solely based on a private contractual arrangement."
The court also noted that the mandate of toll fee collection by NHAI or its concessionaire not just relies on contractual agreement but also under statutory provisions.
"Consequently, in the absence of compliance with the objectives underlying the imposition of such fees, the National Highways Authority or its concessionaire cannot assert a right to demand or collect the same," it added.
'Obligation to ensure public interest'
The bench emphasised that user fee collection on highways needs to go hand-in-hand with the public receiving services without any hindrances. It said that the State is inherently obligated to the duty of not just serving, but prioritising public interest, be in any public infrastructure project initiated by it.
"This responsibility necessitates effective public management and oversight of such infrastructure projects. The contractual obligations entered into by the State with private partners cannot absolve the State of its foundational duty arising from the public trust doctrine," the bench said.
"Any failure on the part of the National Highways Authority or its agents to ensure such access constitutes a breach of the public’s legitimate expectations and undermines the very basis of the toll regime," the court added.
Suspension on toll fee on NH 544 stretch
As it heard a batch of petitions challenging the collection of toll fee on the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of NH 544, the court noted that the NHAI ignored the interests of the public and has taken their grievances lightly, reported PTI.
"We note with concern the total apathy displayed by the National Highways Authority in addressing the grievances raised, despite multiple opportunities having been made available to them at least from February 2025 onwards. Although the issue was repeatedly brought to their attention, no meaningful steps were taken to pursue redressal with the central government," it said.
The court also noted a "lack of managerial standards" by the government in dealing with such issues, calling for it to intervene in the matter. The bench held that the Centre was was the only authority to prescribe rates in situations like these, whether it was a pro rata deduction or suspension of levying fee till measures are taken.
With PTI inputs