'Commuters Can't Be Losers': Kerala High Court Questions Centre's Proposal To Raise Toll On Congested NH-544 Stretch

Update: 2025-10-06 07:30 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Central Government today told the Kerala High Court that it will decide in three days whether to increase tariff at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza, where toll collection currently stands suspended on account of poor road conditions.This comes after the division bench comprising Justice A Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon took exception to Centre's proposal to increase tariff on...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Central Government today told the Kerala High Court that it will decide in three days whether to increase tariff at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza, where toll collection currently stands suspended on account of poor road conditions.

This comes after the division bench comprising Justice A Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Harisankar V Menon took exception to Centre's proposal to increase tariff on the said stretch of NH 544, despite "evident road safety concerns". It orally remarked,

"Severe congestion persist in multilevel...We don't know who is the loser in this game but we can't allow the commuters to be losers."

Significant to note that the Court had earlier asked the Centre to decide the manner of toll collection in a situation like this (12 hours traffic jam), and whether a pro rata deduction should be given to commuters or whether the levy of toll fee should be suspended till measures are taken.

Today, the Court observed that Centre should have been prudent enough to increase the tariff only once the issue was resolved.

"Why the Central government is not taking action? As you have mentioned it is a 65 km stretch. What is being affected is only 5 km. You could have come up with a solution. Instead you increased it (tariff). We are not experts. That's why we have relegated entire issue to Central government...You are now collecting increases for service roads? You are only looking at the contractor's perspective," the judges orally remarked.

At this juncture, the Additional Solicitor General appearing for NHAI submitted that conditions for resumption of toll collection had been complied.

"Sufficient signs have been provided which shows that road work is going on...The difference in height between the road and the area in which work is going on 1.5 meters depth. To provide safeguard barricades have been provided and the reflectors are being provided and the roads are being used by the people. Therefore the Road is there. Safety measures are also there in place," he submitted.

Disputing this, the District Collector appearing online submitted the status of safety concerns "persist" in the construction area.

"After the previous hearing there is severe congestion in this area mainly because of the multilane traffic merges into narrow single line in service roads," he added.

Thereafter, the ASG submitted that the tariff revision is merely a "periodic increase" and that the Centre will take a decision on this in three days.

Accordingly, the matter is posted to Friday for further consideration. 

The Court had initially suspended the toll collection at Paliyekkara Toll Plaza for 4 weeks, which was extended by subsequent orders.

An Interim Traffic Management Committee was constituted to devise an interim traffic management plan on the congested stretch in NH 544 and conduct traffic inspection in the stretch. The committee inspected the stretch and pointed issues of uneven surfaces and culvert works. The Court had then directed the NHAI to submit a compliance report to the District Collector and the Interim Committee. This report was found satisfactory by the Committee.

Although the court had hinted at lifting the suspension of toll collection, it deferred from lifting the suspension siting collapse of service road at Muringoor and has asked NHAI to submit a report on the completion of work. 

Case Title - Shaji J Kodankadath v Union of India and connected cases

Case No - WP(C) 20253/2021 and connected cases

Counsel for Petitioners - K B Gangesh, Smitha Chathanarambath, Amal S Kumar, Athira A Menon, John Varghese, V Praveen, Sonu Augustine, Premchand M, Sreelakshmi Sabu, P K Subhash, Anoop V Nair, Tanoosha Paul

Counsel for Respondents - O M Shalina (DSG), Nanavati Maulik G, Arun Thomas, Jennis Stephen, Anil Sebastian Pulickel, P Martin Jose, P Prijith, Thomas P Kurivila, Ajay Ben Jose, Manjunath Menon, Hani P Nair, R Githesh, Sachin Jacob Ambat, Anna Lind Eden, Harikrishnan S, Mathews K Philip, T C Krishna, C Dinesh, B G Bidan Chandran, Mathews Nevin Thomas, Kurian Antony Mathew, R Githesh, Sachin Jacob Ambat, N Manoj Kumar (State Attorney), C Harikumar, Sandra Sunny, Arun Kumar M A, Farah Jyothi Pradeep, Anavadya Sanil Kumar, Anjali Krishna 

Click Here To Read/ Download Interim Order

Full View


Tags:    

Similar News