Kerala Paliyekkara toll row: Supreme Court scrutinises road conditions on NH 544 amidst 12-hour traffic jam

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday reserved its order on a petition filed by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) challenging a Kerala High Court judgment that suspended toll collection at the Paliyekkara booth in Thrissur district over the poor condition of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch of National Highway 544. The bench also heard a petition from Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire operating the toll, which likewise contested the ruling.

The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India B R Gavai, Justice K Vinod Chandran and Justice N V Anjaria, repeatedly referred to a traffic jam lasting more than 12 hours on the stretch last weekend. At the previous hearing on August 14, the court had expressed reluctance to entertain  NHAI’s plea, asking how tolls could be collected when the road was not kept in motorable condition.

As the matter was taken up, Justice Chandran asked Solicitor General (SG) of India Tushar Mehta, representing 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 replied.

“The lorry did not fall down on its own. It fell into a pothole and got turned over,” Justice Chandran said.

The Solicitor General said NHAI had constructed service roads as alternatives where underpasses are being built, but monsoon rains had hampered progress.

At that point, CJI Gavai asked about the toll rate for the 65 km stretch. When told it was Rs 150, he remarked: “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 end? A road which is expected to take one hour, it takes 11 more hours and they have to pay toll as well!”

SG pointed to a judgment stating that instead of a complete waiver, tolls should be reduced proportionately. “For the 12 hour block, the National Highway should pay something to the commuters,” Justice Chandran quipped. He added: “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.”

The Solicitor General said NHAI’s concern was that the High Court allowed Guruvayoor Infrastructure to recover its losses from the authority. The bench said it could clarify that disputes between NHAI and the concessionaire would go to arbitration.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Guruvayoor Infrastructure, argued that contracts for underpass works at intersections had been awarded to third parties, who should be held liable for traffic problems. He said the concessionaire was maintaining its portion of the road but had been unfairly blamed.

“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 noted that the High Court had protected the concessionaire’s interests by allowing it to claim losses before NHAI. Divan disagreed, saying the company must maintain the highway daily but could not collect revenue. He added that PSG Engineering had taken charge of the disputed areas in April 2024. “An order of this nature cannot be issued against a private party under Article 226. This is how I breathe, but suddenly it's turned off,” Divan said.

Senior Advocate Jayant Muthraj, for the petitioners before the High Court, argued it was NHAI’s duty to ensure the road remained motorable. When CJI Gavai asked how the concessionaire could be held liable for work assigned to third parties, Muthraj replied that all parties should have coordinated to maintain the road. “Nothing of that sort has happened and everybody is happily collecting money,” he said.

Mehta countered that “We have compelled PSG to spend everyday 3-4 lakhs to keep the road motorable. But there are some issues which cannot be attributed to the NHAI.”

Muthraj said the High Court had issued multiple directions earlier to address the issue, and its suspension order came as a last resort. He urged the Supreme Court not to interfere.

CJI Gavai noted that the difficulties caused by monsoon rains could not be ignored. “We will consider everything, reserve for orders,” he said.

On 6 August, a division bench of the Kerala High Court had ordered a four-week suspension of toll collection, citing poor maintenance of the Edappally-Mannuthy stretch and heavy congestion due to delayed works. The court held that tolls could not be collected when access to the highway was hindered.

“It is to be remembered that the public is obliged to pay the user fees at the toll for using the highway. It casts responsibility on the National Highways Authority to ensure smooth traffic without any barrier created by the NHAI or by its agents, who are the concessionaires. This relationship between the Public and the NHAI is bound by the tie of public trust. The moment it is breached or violated, the right to collect toll fees from the public created through statutory provisions cannot be forced on the public,” the High Court observed.

Live Law inputs