The Supreme Court has declined to interfere with the judgment of the Kerala High Court, which was challenged by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) with respect to the liability arising from the suspension of toll for four weeks at the Paliyekkara plaza on National Highway 544 in Thrissur district, citing the poorly maintained condition of the roads and chronic traffic congestion.

The petition was filed before a division bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran, both of whom are familiar with the worn-out condition of the stretch. “When the road is in such bad condition… I had occasion to travel in it. You take the toll from the people and do not provide the services….,” said the CJI.

Facts

In 2006, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) granted a concession to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. for the collection of user fees and maintenance of the Edapally–Mannuthy stretch of NH-544.

While NHAI functioned as the statutory authority, the responsibility for actual upkeep and toll management rested with the concessionaire. However, due to the construction of underpasses, flyovers, drainage works, and other infrastructure by another group of private contractors, traffic gridlock arose.

It has also been observed that the present problem could have been mitigated if the roads had been properly maintained by Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

To challenge the allotment of the toll collection rights for the stretch to Guruvayoor Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., and to question the toll collection on the poorly maintained Edapally–Mannuthy stretch of NH-544, various petitions were filed before the Kerala High Court.

The Kerala High Court had passed an order to halt the toll collection of the stretch which was challenged in the Supreme Court.

Arguments Before The Supreme Court:

In the petition, the concerns of NHAI were pointed out by the Solicitor General of India (SG), Tushar Mehta, stating that the concessionaire was entrusted with the task of maintenance and construction of the roads which are collected from the toll. He stated, “It is contended that due to local pressure, there had to be intersections made in the roads, which otherwise local people indiscriminately opened up, leading to a number of accidents.”

These four blocks came before the toll on the stretch, where the construction is going on and the service road has fallen due to monsoons resulting in gridlock.

However, the order imposed a blanket prohibition on toll collection by the concessionaire.

It was argued that traffic woes is due to four spots where construction is on going. He referred to the case of, “DSC-Viacon CA Ventures Private Limited (Now Known as DSC Ventures Private Limited) v. Lal Manohar Pandey and Others,”. In the said judgement, the Court ordered for a proportionate reduction without wiping out the entire toll charged.

Shri Jayanth Muthuraj, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioners in the Supreme Court highlighted the 12-hour traffic block in the National Highway between Ernakulam and Trissur, and stated that the court had issued various directions which did not evoke the response it should have, and it was in that circumstances that the impugned order was passed.

After hearing the facts and arguments in the matter, the Supreme Court could not but agree with the reasoning of the High Court which had ruled that, “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.”

Maintaining that its priority was the harried citizens, the strained environment and the abject wastage of fuel, the Apex Court made it clear that it will not interfere with the interim order of the High Court the ruling of which was purely intended for the purpose of easing traffic woes.

The bench remarked, “We are clear in our minds that there is no cause for interference to the interim order and we are convinced not only that the order be sustained, but the Division Bench also be requested to monitor the situation to ensure ease of traffic. We also request the Division Bench to implead the contractor who is carrying out the work on the black spots, namely M/s. PST Engineering and Constructions, Namakkal’’.

The Bench further stated that,“We are not inclined to make any proportionate reduction in toll since the cited decision took note of repairs in patches and not a total lock jam, as is the case herein.”

“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.”

With this the appeals were dismissed with the above observations and reservations.

Case Details : NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA AND ANR. Versus O.J JANEESH AND ORS| SLP(C) No. 22579/2025