Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice N. Nagaresh has dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the establishment of a temporary toll plaza at Arikady in Kasaragod District. The court held that there was no illegality in setting up the second toll plaza at the proposed location, as the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) had obtained the requisite approval from the appropriate authority in accordance with the proviso to Rule 8(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The judgment records that the executing authority had duly recorded reasons in writing for the location of another fee plaza within 60 kilometres of an existing one. The petitions, which contended that the proposed toll violated statutory spacing requirements, were therefore dismissed. The court concluded that the necessary procedural and statutory compliances had been fulfilled by the respondents and that the establishment of the temporary toll plaza was permissible under the law.

The matter before the High Court concerned three writ petitions, W.P.(C) Nos. 18542, 18764, and 19590 of 2025, filed by residents of Kasaragod District. The petitioners alleged that the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) was constructing a toll plaza in violation of Rule 8(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The petitions were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment dated 13 August 2025.

Also Read: Place Of Exclusive Jurisdiction Deemed Seat Of Arbitration | Supreme Court Says Parties “Clearly Intended To Exclude All Other Courts”

The petitioners stated that they are residents of Kasaragod Taluk and frequently travel within the district for their daily affairs. They pointed out that the NHAI had granted a tender to the Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited for the execution of works on the Thalappady–Cherkkala reach of NH-66. According to them, 90% of the work had been completed, with only the service road, foot overbridge, and footpath works pending.

The grievance arose from the NHAI’s direction to the contractor to construct a temporary toll plaza at Arikady in Kumbla. The petitioners stated that a toll plaza already exists at Thalappady, 1.5 kilometres from the Kerala–Karnataka border, and that the proposed Arikady toll would be located along the 39-kilometre Thalappady–Cherkkala stretch. The petitioners contended that Rule 8(2) of the 2008 Rules mandates a minimum distance of 60 kilometres between two fee plazas on the same section of a national highway in the same direction, except in specified circumstances. They argued that the proposed Arikady toll falls short of this requirement and is therefore illegal.

They submitted that in Kasaragod, the designated toll plaza is located at Chalingal near Periya, on the Cherkala–Neeleshwar stretch, exactly 60 kilometres from Thalappady. The petitioners claimed that the proposed Kumbla plaza breached the mandatory spacing rule.

In support of their argument, the petitioners relied on the Supreme Court judgment in National Highways Authority of India and others v. Madhukar Kumar and others [(2022) 14 SCC 661], contending that all state actions must be fair, failing which they would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. They also cited the Jammu and Kashmir High Court decision in Sugandha Sawhney v. Union of India [2025 Supreme (JK) 56], which they said reinforced the mandatory 60-kilometre spacing requirement.

The NHAI opposed the petitions through a counter affidavit. The Standing Counsel for NHAI submitted that under Rule 8(2) of the 2008 Rules, the executing authority may, for recorded reasons, establish another fee plaza within 60 kilometres of an existing one, provided prior consent is obtained. The Standing Counsel stated that in this case, necessary approval and sanction for setting up a temporary toll plaza at chainage 37+200 had been duly obtained from the appropriate authority. It was submitted that the permanent toll plaza is planned at chainage 74+140 on the Chengala–Neeleshwaram section of NH-66, but as that section is still under construction and non-operational, the respondents were compelled to establish a temporary toll facility for the completed 39-kilometre stretch from Thalappady to Chengala.

The court heard counsel for the petitioners, the Central Government Counsel, Standing Counsel for NHAI, and the Government Pleader for the State of Kerala. The petitioners reiterated that the proposed toll plaza, being approximately 20 kilometres from the existing Thalappady plaza, was contrary to Rule 8(2) and detrimental to daily commuters and transport operators. The respondents maintained that the establishment was in full compliance with the proviso to Rule 8(2) and supported by necessary administrative sanction.

The record included documents such as the sanction order for the temporary toll plaza, office notes evidencing the sanction by the executing authority, and related gazette notifications. These were marked as respondent exhibits in the proceedings.

Justice N. Nagaresh recorded that the petitioners' central contention was that the new toll plaza violated the distance restriction under Rule 8(2) of the 2008 Rules. The court set out the text of Rule 8, noting that sub-rule (2) states: "Any other fee plaza on the same section of national highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of sixty kilometers". However, the first proviso to Rule 8(2) allows the executing authority to establish another fee plaza within this distance for recorded reasons.

The court observed that: "Though Rule 8 mandates that a second Fee Plaza on the same Section of National Highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 Km., the first proviso to Rule 8(2) states that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another Fee Plaza within a distance of 60 Km."

The judgment noted that the counter affidavit filed by the Project Director, NHAI specifically stated that the necessary approval and sanction for setting up a temporary toll plaza at CH.37+200 had been duly obtained from the appropriate authority by invoking the proviso to Rule 8(2). It further recorded that: "The NHAI has given clear reasons in this regard in Ext.R3(b) office notes evidencing sanction given by the appropriate authority."

Justice Nagaresh stated: "In view of the permission granted by the executing authority for establishment of another Fee Plaza, I do not find any illegality in starting a second Toll Plaza at the site now proposed."

The court accepted the NHAI’s submission that the temporary toll facility was necessitated by the completion and operation of the Thalappady to Chengala stretch while the permanent Chengala–Neeleshwaram section remained incomplete. The authority had therefore acted within its powers under the proviso to Rule 8(2), having obtained requisite sanction and recorded its reasons in writing.

Also Read: Delhi HC : Courts Must Closely Scrutinise Claims Of ‘Urgent Interim Relief’ Under Section 12A | Warns Litigants Against Misusing Exception To Skip Pre-Institution Mediation | Stresses Provision Meant Only For Genuine Urgency

Justice N. Nagaresh concluded the judgment with the following finding: "In view of the permission granted by the executing authority for establishment of another Fee Plaza, I do not find any illegality in starting a second Toll Plaza at the site now proposed." The court thus dismissed all three writ petitions challenging the establishment of the Arikady toll plaza.

"The writ petitions therefore fail and they are hence dismissed." No further relief was granted to the petitioners. The dismissal affirmed the validity of the approval process undertaken by the NHAI and confirmed the permissibility of establishing the toll plaza within the 60-kilometre limit, provided the proviso to Rule 8(2) is satisfied.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Smt. Ummul Fida, Sri. C. Ijlal, Smt. P. Parvathy, Shri. Majid Muhammed K., Shri. Anandu R.; Sri. P.K. Subhash, Smt. Sreelakshmi Sabu; Sri. P.E. Sajal, Shri. Muhammed Hisham T., Smt. Fathima Rinsha T.P.

For the Respondents: Sri. K.A. Salil Narayanan, Shri. M. Sasindran, Sri. B.G. Bidan Chandran; Shri. Bonny Baby, Shri. Renjish S. Menon, CGC, Sri. Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader; Shri. Jose Antony, CGC, Sri. Dheeraj A.S., Government Pleader, Shri. M. Sasindran.

Case Title: Zubair C.A. & Ors. v. Project Director, NHAI & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:60808

Case Number: W.P.(C) Nos. 18542, 18764 & 19590 of 2025

Bench: Justice N. Nagaresh