The Supreme Court (SC) on Monday raised serious concerns
about toll charges on a congested highway in Thrissur, Kerala. A Bench led
by Chief Justice B R Gavai, along with
Justices K Vinod Chandran and N V Anjaria, questioned why commuters should pay
?150 to cover a 65-kilometre stretch that takes 12 hours.
"Why should a person pay ?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 CJI said.
The
court was hearing pleas from the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI)
and concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure challenging the Kerala High
Court’s order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza.
The Kerala High Court had suspended toll collection on August 6, citing the poor
condition of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544. Severe
traffic congestion due to ongoing construction works was also highlighted.
During
Monday’s hearing, the Bench was informed about a nearly 12-hour traffic jam on
the highway over the past weekend.
"We
will consider everything, reserve for orders," the Bench said after
hearing Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the NHAI, and senior
advocate Shyam Divan, representing the concessionaire.
Justice
Chandran noted that the traffic block was not a mere act of God, as argued by
Mehta, but was caused by a lorry toppling into a pothole. Mehta said NHAI had
provided service roads where underpass construction was underway, but admitted
that monsoon rains slowed progress. He also cited a precedent suggesting that
toll could be proportionally reduced rather than fully suspended.
Justice Chandran countered, saying that a 12-hour ordeal
was far beyond any proportional adjustment.
The concessionaire argued that it maintained only the 60
km under its control and blamed third-party contractors, including PSG
Engineering, for service road 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
?56 crore in just 10 days," Divan said, calling the high court’s order
“grossly unfair".
The Bench noted that the High Court had allowed the concessionaire
to raise claims against NHAI for losses, but Divan said it was inadequate as
daily maintenance costs continued while revenue halted.
Senior advocate Jayant Muthraj, representing the original
petitioners before the High Court, said that it was NHAI’s responsibility to
ensure a motorable road. He argued that collecting toll amid such poor
conditions violated public trust. The High Court had issued interim directions,
emphasising toll suspension as a last resort.
On August 14, the Supreme Court expressed reluctance to
interfere with the high court’s order suspending toll collection.
The Kerala High Court had ordered a four-week suspension,
noting that motorists should not be charged when the highway was badly
maintained and traffic congestion severe. It said the NHAI has a duty to
maintain smooth traffic flow as part of its public trust.