Kerala High Court Dismisses Pleas Challenging Proposal Of Temporary Toll Plaza In Kasargod On NH-66 Stretch

The petitioners challenged the proposed temporary toll as violative of Rule 8(2) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 for being less than 60km from another toll plaza on the same national highway.

Justice N. Nagaresh observed:

“Though Rule 8 mandates that a second Fee Plaza on the same Section of National Highway and in the same direction shall not be established within a distance of 60 Km., the first proviso to Rule 8(2) states that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire to establish another Fee Plaza within a distance of 60 Km…The NHAI has given clear reasons in this regard in Ext.R3(b) office notes evidencing sanction given by the appropriate authority.”

According to the plea, there is one toll plaza located at Thalappady in NH-66 and another permanent toll plaza is to come up at Chalingalon the Chengala – Neeleshwaram Section of NH-66. These two toll plazas would be located at a distance of exactly 60 km from each other.

Presently, a tender has been granted to Uralungal Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited to carry out the work of Thalappady–Cherkkala stretch of NH-66. The Society was also directed to construct a temporary toll at Arikady.

The NHAI (National Highways Authority of India) opposed the plea and stated that as per the Rules, another toll plaza can be established within a distance of 60km if prior consent is received. It was also submitted that since the section for the permanent toll plaza was still under construction, there was a necessity to establish the temporary facility to collect toll for the completed stretch, and that requisite permits were received for the same.

Recently, another Bench of the High Court had suspended toll collection in the Paliyekkara Toll Plaza in Thrissur district stating that NHAI cannot collect tolls if the highways are not well-maintained.

Accepting the contentions of the NHAI, the Court dismissed the writ petitions.

Case No: W.P.(C) No.18542/2025 & connected cases

Case Title: Zubair C.A. and Anr. v. Project Director, NHAI and Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 500

Counsel for the petitioners: Ummul Fida, C. Ijlal, P. Parvathy, Majid Muhammed K., Anandu R., P.K. Subhash, Sreelakshmi Sabu, P.E. Sajal, Muhammed Hisham T., Fathima Rinsha T.P.

Counsel for the respondents: K.A. Salil Narayan, M. Sasindran, B.G. Bidan Chandran, Bonny Baby, Renjish S. Menon – CGC, Dheeraj A.S. – GP, Jose Antony – CGC.

Click To Read/Download Judgment