The Supreme Court on Monday pulled up the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) over the poor condition of the Edappally–Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544 in Kerala, asking why commuters should be charged toll if they were forced to spend 12 hours covering a 65-kilometer distance.
A bench headed by Chief Justice B.R. Gavai, along with Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria, reserved its verdict on appeals filed by the NHAI and its concessionaire, Guruvayoor Infrastructure, challenging a Kerala High Court order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza in Thrissur.
“Why should a person pay Rs 150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other? A road which is expected to take one hour takes 11 more hours, and they still have to pay toll as well,” Chief Justice Gavai observed.
High Court’s Suspension of Toll
On August 6, the Kerala High Court ordered a four-week suspension of toll collection, citing the poor state of the highway and severe congestion caused by ongoing construction works. The court said toll charges could not be justified when smooth passage was not ensured, stressing that the NHAI owed a duty of “public trust” to commuters.
Arguments in Supreme Court
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for NHAI, admitted that monsoon rains had slowed construction and argued that the authority had provided service roads to ease traffic. He suggested proportionate toll reduction instead of suspension. However, Justice Chandran disagreed, noting that a 12-hour ordeal went far beyond any proportional adjustment, adding that the traffic block was caused by a lorry toppling into a pothole, not merely an “act of God.”
Senior advocate Shyam Divan, representing the concessionaire, argued that the company had maintained the 60-kilometer stretch under its control and blamed third-party contractors, including PSG Engineering, for the bottlenecks on service roads. He said the high court’s order was “grossly unfair,” pointing out that the concessionaire had already lost Rs 5–6 crore in just 10 days, while maintenance costs continued.
The bench, however, noted that the high court had permitted the concessionaire to raise claims against NHAI for such losses.
Petitioners’ Stand
Appearing for the original petitioners, senior advocate Jayant Muthraj maintained that NHAI bore the ultimate responsibility to ensure a motorable road. He said toll collection amid crumbling road conditions and massive congestion was against public interest and that the high court had suspended tolls only after giving interim directions as a last resort.
Earlier on August 14, the Supreme Court had expressed its reluctance to interfere with the Kerala High Court’s suspension order. The verdict has now been reserved.
