The Supreme Court on Monday asked the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) why commuters should pay toll tax if it took them 12 hours to cover a distance that usually takes one hour.

The bench of Chief Justice B.R. Gavai and Justices K. Vinod Chandran and N.V. Anjaria made the remark while reserving its verdict on pleas filed by the NHAI and concessionaire Guruvayoor Infrastructure challenging Kerala High Court’s order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza in Thrissur.

The high court had passed the order on a PIL seeking action against the authorities for the poor condition of the Edapally-Mannuthy stretch of NH-544.

“Why should a person pay ₹150 if it takes 12 hours for him to reach from one end to the other end of the road? A road, which is expected to take one hour, takes 11 more hours and yet one has to pay the toll?” CJI Gavai asked solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NHAI.

Justice Chandran said the accident, which triggered the block on toll collection, was not a mere “act of God” as argued by Mehta, but was caused by a lorry toppling into a
pothole.

The bench said the accident took place solely because of the dilapidated road, which was not maintained despite the collection of toll tax from commuters.

The bench referred to news reports about the 12-hour traffic snarl on the road causing innumerable hardships to the commuters.

Mehta said the NHAI had constructed several service roads to ease the congestion, but the arguments failed to convince the bench.

Citing some previous apex court judgments, Mehta said the high court should have reduced the toll tax rate instead of suspending collection.

The bench said the NHAI should ideally compensate commuters who were caught in endless traffic jams.

Senior advocate Shyam Divan, appearing for the concessionaire, said the company had so far lost around ₹6 crore in toll tax revenues.

“My revenue stream cannot be stopped when I am not responsible for the highway road condition or the work entrusted to others. The high court order is grossly unfair to me,” Divan argued.

Senior advocate Jayant Muthiraj, representing the petitioner, justified the high court’s order. He said the authorities had violated the doctrine of “public trust” by failing to repair the road.

He urged the court to dismiss the appeals filed against the high court directive.

The bench reserved its judgment.

The high court had on August 6 ordered a four-week suspension of toll collection, observing that motorists could not be charged when the highway was badly maintained and traffic congestion was severe.