Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, and Justice N. V. Anjaria dismissed a series of appeals challenging a High Court order concerning toll collection and road maintenance. The Court upheld the suspension of toll collection for four weeks, directed continued monitoring by the High Court, and clarified that citizens cannot be compelled to pay for using roads that are not maintained in a condition ensuring unhindered and safe passage. The Bench further directed impleadment of the contractor responsible for certain works into the proceedings and held that any claims of damages would be subject to adjudication before an appropriate forum.

The dispute arose over the condition of the national highway stretch between Ernakulam and Mannuthy, spanning 64.94 kilometers and constructed under a Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract. The concessionaire responsible for construction was also tasked with maintenance during the concession period, funding such responsibilities through toll collections.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Clubbing Of 81 FIRs Against Builder | Grants Six-Month Temporary Bail On Condition To Deposit ₹9.94 Crore | Court Warns Keeping Him In Jail Serves No Purpose For Home Buyers

The High Court had earlier suspended toll collection for four weeks, citing repeated failures to address traffic congestion and inadequate road maintenance. The order required repairs and decongestion measures within the stipulated period. The suspension order aggrieved both the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and the concessionaire, prompting separate appeals.

The Solicitor General, appearing for the NHAI, contended that the traffic congestion was limited to four "black spots" at Amballur, Perambra, Muringur, and Chirangara, where underpasses and flyovers were under construction. The NHAI asserted that while service roads had deteriorated, the main carriageway remained functional. It also challenged paragraph 22 of the High Court order, which suggested that the concessionaire could raise claims for losses against the NHAI. The NHAI argued that only proportionate reductions, not complete suspension of tolls, should apply, citing precedent in DSC-Viacon Ventures Private Limited v. Lal Manohar Pandey (2015) 15 SCC 509.

The concessionaire, represented by Senior Counsel Shyam Divan, argued that it bore no responsibility for the traffic deadlock, as the works at the black spots had been contracted out by the NHAI to another company. The concessionaire stated that toll revenue was vital for maintaining the balance carriageway and claimed daily revenue losses of approximately Rs. 49 lakhs due to the suspension.

On the other hand, Senior Counsel Jayanth Muthuraj, representing the writ petitioners, submitted that repeated directions issued by the High Court to the NHAI had gone unheeded, resulting in the drastic step of toll suspension. He further stated instances of severe congestion, including a 12-hour traffic block between Ernakulam and Trissur.

The Supreme Court recorded that the High Court’s intervention stemmed from inaction despite several directions. It stated that the order was issued "especially when the arguments of the NHAI and the Concessionaire gloss over the citizen centric approach, the High Court took in the matter." The Bench expressed surprise that additional works on the road were contracted to another agency, despite the concessionaire’s obligations under the BOT agreement.

The Court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning, quoting: “The obligation of the public to pay a user fee under statutory provisions is premised on the assurance that their use of the road will be free from hindrances. When the public is legally bound to pay a user fee, they simultaneously acquire a corresponding right to demand unhindered, safe, and regulated access to the road. 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.”

Addressing the NHAI’s concerns regarding liability, the Court clarified: “The statement made by the High Court in paragraph 22, only states the obvious, but we clarify that it is not a finding of absolute liability mulcted on the NHAI. If any damages are claimed, it would definitely depend upon the causation of the blockage and congestion, leading to the impasse and the issue could be agitated before the appropriate forum and for determination of the same, the rival contentions of the parties would be left open.”

The Court further noted that the primary concern lay not in the financial implications for the concessionaire or NHAI, but in “the plight of the harried citizen, the strained environment and the abject wastage of fuel.”

While acknowledging that only a limited portion of the stretch was directly impacted by the construction works, the Court stated the cascading effect of the congestion: “Even if only 5 kms at the black spots in the 65 kms stretch is affected, the fact remains that the cascading effect of the traffic jam at the black spots compounds the hours to traverse the entire stretch.”

The Supreme Court sustained the High Court’s interim order of toll suspension, holding that there was no cause for interference. It directed that the Division Bench of the High Court continue monitoring the situation to ensure smooth traffic flow. The Court also requested impleadment of the contractor executing the works at the black spots, M/s. PST Engineering and Constructions, Namakkal, into the proceedings.

The Court rejected the plea for proportionate reduction of toll, distinguishing the present case from precedents. It held that the ongoing congestion was not comparable to partial damages requiring patch repairs, but amounted to a “total lock jam.”

The Court recorded the Solicitor General’s assurance that repairs and maintenance were progressing on a “war footing” and observed: “The minute smooth traffic is resumed, the NHAI or the Concessionaire would be entitled to pray for lifting the prohibitory order, even before the four-weeks as ordered by the High Court.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Declines KTU Vice Chancellor’s Interim Plea | Says Relief Sought Is Identical To Main Prayer And Meeting Date Already Over

Regarding potential compensation for losses, the Court noted that claims by the concessionaire could be raised before the NHAI or through extension of the concession period, subject to determination of responsibility in appropriate proceedings.

Concluding, the Court stated: “In the meanwhile, let the citizens be free to move on the roads, for use of which they have already paid taxes, without further payment to navigate the gutters and pot-holes, symbols of inefficiency.”

The appeals were dismissed with the above observations and reservations.

Case Title: National Highways Authority of India and Anr. v. O.J. Janeesh & Ors.

Case Number: Civil Appeal No. …… of 2025 (@ SLP (C) No. 22579 of 2025 and connected matters)

Bench: Chief Justice B. R. Gavai, Justice K. Vinod Chandran, Justice N. V. Anjaria