Why Pay Toll If Traffic Block Lasts 12 Hours? Supreme Court Reserves Order on NHAI's Plea over Paliyekkara Toll Collection in NH 544

The Supreme Court on Monday (August 18) reserved its order on the petition filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the Kerala High Court judgment that suspended toll collection in the Paliyekkara toll booth of Thrissur district. The case revolves around the Toll Collection in NH 544, especially the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch, which has been in poor condition and caused massive traffic congestion. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran, and Justice NV Anjaria, also heard the petition of Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire engaged in toll operations, which opposed the suspension of toll.

Toll Collection in NH 544 and Traffic Chaos

The Kerala High Court had suspended Toll Collection in NH 544 for four weeks after repeated complaints of severe traffic congestion and poor road maintenance. The High Court observed that toll fees cannot be imposed when the highway is not maintained in a motorable condition.

During the hearing, Justice Chandran highlighted the recent incident where a 12-hour traffic block occurred due to a lorry toppling into a pothole. The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, representing the NHAI, argued that monsoon rains and ongoing construction works caused difficulties, and service roads had been arranged as alternatives. However, the bench was not convinced.

CJI Gavai questioned why commuters should pay ?150 for a 65 km stretch when the journey takes up to 12 hours instead of the usual one hour. He remarked that the situation was unfair to the public, as the road condition had severely deteriorated. The bench stressed that when commuters are forced to spend 12 hours on the road, Toll Collection in NH 544 becomes unjustifiable.

Arguments from NHAI and Concessionaire

The Solicitor General argued that, according to earlier judgments, toll fees cannot be suspended entirely but may be proportionately reduced when road conditions worsen. Justice Chandran, however, countered this argument, stating that in the case of a 12-hour traffic block, proportionate reduction was meaningless. He even suggested in lighter terms that the NHAI should compensate commuters for the time lost.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, representing Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, contended that his client was unfairly targeted. He argued that his company maintained 60 kilometers of the stretch properly and that the construction delays at underpasses were caused by third-party contractors like PSG Engineering, which was not even made a party in the case. He highlighted that his client had already incurred losses of ?5-6 crores in just ten days due to the suspension of Toll Collection in NH 544. According to him, suspending toll operations severely impacts the revenue stream of the concessionaire, which continues to bear maintenance costs daily.

CJI Gavai responded that the High Court had protected the concessionaire’s interest by allowing it to claim losses from the NHAI. However, Divan argued that this was not real protection since litigation against NHAI would create unnecessary disputes. He stressed that an order under Article 226 of the Constitution should not unfairly penalize a private party carrying out contractual obligations.

Petitioners’ Stand on Toll Collection in NH 544

On the other side, Senior Advocate Jayant Muthraj, representing the petitioners who had approached the High Court, insisted that the NHAI was responsible for maintaining motorable roads. He argued that commuters were suffering daily while multiple parties were engaged in blame-shifting. According to him, there was no coordination among NHAI, concessionaires, and contractors to ensure smooth traffic. He emphasized that all stakeholders were still collecting money while commuters were left stranded.

Muthraj highlighted that the High Court had not acted abruptly but had issued multiple prior directions to resolve the issue. The suspension of Toll Collection in NH 544, he argued, was a last resort after the public continued to face hardship. He urged the Supreme Court not to interfere with the High Court’s decision, noting that the suspension was meant to uphold public trust and fairness.

Judicial Concerns and Public Interest

The Supreme Court bench acknowledged the difficulties posed by monsoons but also underlined the importance of protecting public interest. CJI Gavai noted that the public pays toll fees with the expectation of smooth travel. When Toll Collection in NH 544 continues despite long delays and pothole-ridden roads, it undermines the principle of fairness. The Court remarked that the relationship between NHAI and commuters is bound by public trust, and once this trust is violated, forcing toll payments becomes unreasonable.

The Kerala High Court had echoed similar sentiments in its August 6 judgment, emphasizing that toll fees should not be collected from the public when access to the highway is hindered by ill-maintained roads and traffic congestion. It stressed that NHAI carries the responsibility of ensuring uninterrupted travel, and failure to do so directly affects the legitimacy of Toll Collection in NH 544.

The Supreme Court has now reserved orders, indicating that it will carefully consider the balance between contractual rights of concessionaires, responsibilities of NHAI, and the rights of commuters.

Conclusion

The ongoing legal battle over Toll Collection in NH 544 highlights a critical tension between infrastructure authorities, concessionaires, and public rights. While concessionaires argue about financial losses and contractual fairness, commuters question the legitimacy of paying tolls for poorly maintained highways. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming order will determine whether toll suspension remains in force or whether a different mechanism, like proportionate reduction, will be applied.

Ultimately, the case underscores a fundamental principle: toll fees must correspond to the quality of service provided. Commuters cannot be compelled to pay for a service that fails to deliver safe, smooth, and timely travel. The Court’s ruling will set an important precedent on the scope of toll collection when public convenience is seriously compromised.

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