Kerala HC Suspends Toll Collection On NH 544 For 4 Weeks | Public Can't Be Forced To Pay When Roads Are Not Maintained And Trust Is Breached
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V. Menon held that toll collection on the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544 must be suspended, observing that the statutory right to levy user fees cannot be exercised when the public is denied safe and unhindered access to the roads. The Court directed that toll collection be suspended for four weeks and mandated the Central Government to take appropriate remedial steps during this period, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, to address the public grievances caused by traffic congestion and inadequate maintenance.
The matter arose from multiple writ petitions filed in public interest, contesting the legitimacy of toll collection on the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch of NH 544. The petitioners challenged the authority granted to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. to collect user fees under a concession agreement dating back to 2006. One of the key contentions was that construction activities by various contractors, including flyovers, underpasses, and drainage works, had caused severe traffic congestion and waterlogging.
The District Collector initially responded by suspending toll collection through an order dated 28 April 2025. The suspension was based on a series of meetings convened to mitigate traffic congestion, which was found to have been caused primarily by unscientific construction practices. However, this suspension order was later withdrawn on 29 April 2025 after the officials assured that necessary steps would be taken to manage the traffic.
The Court noted that in W.P.(C) No. 28609/2023, another Division Bench had directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to show cause as to why toll collection should not be suspended. The order, dated 9 July 2025, recorded that the NHAI had failed to ensure smooth traffic and that statutory toll collection must correspond with motorable road conditions.
Parallel proceedings in W.P.(PIL) No. 35/2025, heard by the Hon'ble Chief Justice, examined the District Collector's power to suspend toll collection under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Legal issues concerning potential contractual violations and claims for damages were raised by NHAI and the concessionaire.
A meeting convened by the Chief Secretary on 17 July 2025 led to several short-term remedial decisions, such as using wet mix to maintain service roads during monsoon, overlaying key stretches of service roads, and diversion planning for light motor vehicles. Despite these measures, widespread disruption persisted.
The NHAI, in an additional affidavit, asserted that the toll collection was justified as the concessionaire was not responsible for the ongoing construction-related disruptions and that any suspension would breach the concession agreement.
The Court observed, "There may be numerous reasons contributing to the present traffic congestion... Our focus is solely on the legitimacy of collecting user fees from the public in the circumstances."
It was further stated, "The very execution of these new works may also be a contributing factor... The Court, however, cannot disregard the legal obligation imposed upon road users to pay the toll... At the same time, it cannot overlook the reality that the congestion and hardship currently experienced by commuters have resulted directly from a distinct construction activity."
In addressing the argument that disruptions affected only a portion of the highway, the Court remarked, "We are not reiterating here the issues now experienced by the public in this stretch of highway; they are spelt out in the meeting convened by the Chief Secretary as well as in the orders passed by the District Collector."
On the question of statutory duties, the Bench quoted from the National Highways Act and the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, stating, "This relationship between the Public and the NHAI is bound by the tie of public trust. The moment it is breached or violated, the right to collect toll fees from the public... cannot be forced on the public."
The Court elaborated further, "In modern public governance, the State is empowered to delegate its functions... However, in undertaking such engagements, the State remains duty-bound to protect the interests of its subjects."
The Court cited precedent from the Supreme Court in Umri Pooph Pratappur (UPP) Tollways Pvt. Ltd. v. M.P. Road Development Corporation, stating that the right to motorable roads is part of Article 21 of the Constitution.
It also referred to the principles of accountability detailed in Vijay Rajmohan v. CBI, quoting, "Accountability has three essential constituent dimensions: (i) responsibility, (ii) answerability, and (iii) enforceability... It enables action against officials or institutions for dereliction of duty."
In the context of public accountability, the Court added, "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 judgment also recognized the limitations of judicial intervention, noting, "The Court cannot substitute the role of administrative authority... but at the same time the Court can clearly hold that there is breach of public trust."
The Court directed that, "The collection of user fees shall be suspended forthwith for four weeks..." and that, "the Central Government shall take appropriate decisions within the above period addressing the concern and grievance of the public highlighted in the meeting of the Chief Secretary."
It further stated, "In such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the collection of toll shall remain suspended until the Central Government, in consultation with the National Highways Authority, Chief Secretary of the State and Concessionaire, takes appropriate remedial action addressing the public grievance."
Regarding potential financial repercussions, the Court clarified, "We, however, find that any loss sustained by the concessionaire can be raised by the National Highways Authority in an appropriate manner, in accordance with law, if they are otherwise entitled to claim."
On the relevance of precedents, the Court noted a stay granted by the Supreme Court in a similar matter but concluded, "We are of the view that the stay granted by the Apex Court cannot be a reason at all to absolve the National Highways Authority from its responsibility to ensure the use of the highway without any hindrance..."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: M/S. K.B. Gangesh, Smitha Chathanarambath, Amal S. Kumar, Athira A. Menon, Advocates
For the Respondents: Smt. O.M. Shalina, Deputy Solicitor General of India, Sri. Santhosh Mathew, Senior Advocate with M/S. Nanavathi Maulik G., Arun Thomas, Jennis Stephen, Anil Sebastian Pulickal, Advocates, Sri. N. Manoj Kumar, State Attorney & Government Pleader, Sri. S. Sreekumar, Senior Advocate with M/S. P. Martin Jose, P. Prajith, Thomas P. Kuruvila, Harikrishnan S., Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Hani P. Nair, Githesh R., Sachin Jacob Ambat, Anna Linda V.J., Advocates, Sri. A.R.L. Sundaresan, Additional Solicitor General of India
Case Title: Shaji J. Kodankandath v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: WP(C) No. 20253 of 2021
Bench: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice Harisankar V. Menon
