'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 orders on the petition filed by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) challenging the Kerala High Court's judgment which suspended the toll collection in Paliyekkara toll booth in Thrissur district due to the bad condition of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch in the National Highway 544.The bench also heard the petition filed by the Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire who is collecting the toll, challenging the High Court's judgment.During the hearing, the bench comprising Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice NV Anjaria repeatedly highlighted the huge traffic block which lasted for over 12 hours on this stretch during the last weekend. Even on the previous hearing date (August 14), the bench had expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, asking how the toll can be collected from the commuters when the road is not kept in a motorable condition.As soon as the matter was taken, Justice Chandran told Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was representing the NHAI, "You saw yesterday's Times of India? There was 12 hours of traffic block.""It was an act of God, a lorry fell down," SG said."The lorry did not fall down on its own. It fell into a pothole and got turned over,"Justice Chandran said.SG said that the NHAI has constructed the service roads as alternative ways at the places where the construction of underpasses are going on; however, because of the monsoons, the construction was impacted.At this juncture, CJI BR Gavai asked what the toll price was for the 65 km stretch. On being informed that it was Rs 150, CJI asked, "Why should a person pay 150 Rs if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end?". "A road which is expected to take one hour, it takes 11 more hours and they have to pay toll as well!" CJI exclaimed.SG then pointed out there is a judgment which says that in such a case, instead of no toll, there has to be a proportionate reduction."For the 12 hour block, the National Highway should pay something to the commuters," Justice Chandran commented in a lighter vein."If there is no traffic, it will take maximum one hour to cover this stretch. If there is traffic, it will take maximum 3 hours. For 12 hours, there is no question of proportionate reduction," Justice Chandran stated.SG Tushar Mehta submitted that the NHAI's concern was with respect to the High Court allowing the concessionaire (Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd) to recover from the NHAI the losses incurred due to the toll suspension. The bench said that it can clarify that the dispute between the NHAI and the concessionaire will be subject to arbitration.Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Guruvayoor Infrastructure, submitted that the contracts for the work of the underpasses at the intersections are given to third parties, and they are liable for the traffic block. He claimed that the concessionaire was maintaining well the road stretch which was under its control and contended that the High Court had unnecessarily pinned the blame on them."If there is a problem in the service road, the contractor who has been awarded that work must be held liable. That work is removed from my remit. How can a direction be passed against me when I am maintaining the balance 60 kms? My revenue stream cannot be stopped when I am not responsible for this work. NHAI has entrusted this work on these 5 bottlenecks to the third party, PSG engineering, against whom there is no direction and who is not even made a party. The impact for me has been 5-6 crores already over 10 days. Let there be a stay of this direction. This is grossly unfair," Divan submitted.CJI Gavai said that the High Court has protected the interest of the concessionaire by saying that they can raise their losses before the NHAI. Divan said that it was not a protection, as the concessionaire has to maintain the highway on a daily basis and can't collect revenue.Divan claimed that PSG Engineering took charge of these areas in April 2024. The policy of the court should not be to foment litigiation. When there is no dispute between the NHAI and the concessionaire, why should the Court ask the concessionaire to sue the NHAI, he argued."An order of this nature cannot be issued against a private party under Article 226. This is how I breathe, but suddenly its turned of," Divan said.Senior Advocate Jayant Muthraj, for the petitioners who had approached the High Court, submitted that it is the duty of the NHAI to ensure that the road was in a motorable condition. When CJI asked how can the concessionaire be held liable for the work given to a third party, the senior counsel submitted that there should have been a meeting of minds among all these parties to ensure that the road is motorable. "Nothing of that sort has happened and everybody is happily collecting money," he said."We have compelled PSG to spend everyday 3-4 lakhs to keep the road motorable. But there ...

'Why Pay Toll If Traffic Block Lasts 12 Hours?' : Supreme Court Reserves Order On NHAI's Plea Over Paliyekkara Toll Collection In NH 544

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags