SC slams NHAI over toll collection and poor roads
'Roads are in such bad condition…You are collecting toll but where are the roads? How do you start collecting tolls even without completing the roads?' a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Bhushan R Gavai and Justice K Vinod Chandran remarked, while hearing NHAI's appeal against an August 6 Kerala high court order suspending toll collection at the Paliyekkara toll plaza for four weeks.
The high court had castigated NHAI for 'total apathy' in addressing public grievances over persistent congestion along the Mannuthy-Edappally stretch of National Highway 544, and held that the authority could not demand user fees while breaching the 'tie of public trust' that governs its relationship with road users.
At the outset in the Supreme Court, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for NHAI, pointed out that the highway concessionaire had also filed an appeal, which was due to be heard next week. He suggested that both matters be taken up together. But the bench immediately turned to the state of the roads, noting that they were in 'such a bad condition everywhere' that the very basis for collecting toll was questionable.
Mehta sought to distance NHAI from direct toll collection, saying that the operation and management were the concessionaire's responsibility. Counsel for the concessionaire added that five 'black spots' identified by the authorities were outside the scope of the concessionaire's work, and that the high court itself had recorded compliance with all contractual norms.
The bench was unconvinced. 'You should have planned for intersections and other measures before starting to collect tolls…You start collecting tolls even before the roads are ready,' it remarked.
Mehta responded that work was underway to address the black spots, with underpasses and overbridges being constructed. The bench, however, pointed out that there were bottlenecks on the stretch identified in the high court's order, and even ambulances could not pass. 'In any case, the high court has stopped toll collection for four weeks. Resolve this. You are wasting time filing appeals,' the court said.
The CJI also noted his own recent experience travelling on the highway, saying there were bottlenecks along the route. Mehta attributed some of the congestion to service road blockages caused by ongoing construction to fix the black spots, and requested the matter be listed the following week so he could present maps and photographs.
The bench was critical of NHAI's delay in responding to the high court's concerns. 'The court has been after you since February, but you did not respond. That is how this order came to be passed,' it said, referring to reports in Malayalam newspapers about a man who left at 6am to attend his father-in-law's funeral but could not travel the next 30 kilometres until the afternoon, leading to a confrontation with those managing traffic.
'You must see it to believe it. Why should citizens be put to unnecessary hardship? It is for the NHAI and the concessionaire to resolve their dispute,' the bench added.
The matter will now be heard on August 18.
In its August 6 decision, the Kerala high court ordered the suspension of toll collection at Paliyekkara for four weeks, directing the Union government to address public grievances in consultation with NHAI, the state chief secretary, and the concessionaire. It criticised NHAI for ignoring repeated reminders since February 2025, despite the public being obliged to pay for using national highways.
The court underscored that NHAI's duty to ensure smooth traffic without obstructions was integral to its right to collect tolls. 'The moment public trust is breached, the right to collect toll fees cannot be forced on the public,' it said.
The Centre had contended that the issue was limited to a 4.8km stretch, with the rest of the 65km highway unaffected, and assured the high court it would resolve the problem at the earliest. However, the high court found a clear breach of public trust and ruled that toll collection could not resume until remedial action was taken.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Indian Express
5 hours ago
- New Indian Express
Road ministry issues SoP to remove highway encroachments
NEW DELHI: As part of its ongoing efforts to make national highways safer and obstruction-free, the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways (MoRTH) has issued a fresh Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for identification, reporting, and removal of unauthorised occupations on national highways. The new guidelines also outline the recovery of costs incurred for removal of unauthorised occupation and strengthening measures for traffic regulation. According to the directive, all regional and project-level officers of MoRTH, National Highways Authority of India (NHAI), and National Highways & Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd (NHIDCL) must inspect highways at regular intervals; at least once every three months at the regional level and once a month at the divisional or project level. Contractors, concessionaires and supervision consultants have also been directed to remain vigilant against encroachments and report them promptly. The SoP also mandates drone surveys and aerial imaging mandatory. During highway road construction, such surveys must be carried out quarterly, while in the operation and maintenance stage, the frequency will vary depending on the location--monthly in large urban areas, quarterly in smaller towns, and once every six months in rural stretches. Reports will be uploaded to the Government's 'Datalake' portal—central repository--for record-keeping and follow-up action. The ministry has empowered highway administration officials and district magistrates (DMs) to act swiftly against encroachments. Field officers must first issue preliminary notices, with the assistance of local administrations and police if necessary. If encroachments persist, DMs will step in to enforce removal, impose fines, and recover costs. The penalties--as per the Control of National Highways (Land and Traffic) Act, 2002--include fines of up to Rs 500 per square metre of encroached land, or in cases where this is less than the land's cost, an equivalent amount to the land value. Costs for removal and repair will also be recovered from violators. The SoP also mandates the creation of a dedicated Drone Analytics Management System for monthly monitoring of encroachments using satellite imagery and drone data. 'A dedicated Drone Analytics Management System shall be built up in the designated portal for this purpose and all regional officers of Road Wing/ NHAI/ NHIDCL shall ensure monthly monitoring of the extent and removal of unauthorized occupation on the National Highways in their respective jurisdiction,' read the SoP. Unresolved cases will be escalated to state governments and, if necessary, to the Highway Administration for intervention.
Time of India
7 hours ago
- Time of India
Imposing fixed timelines on Guvs, Prez would lead to 'constitutional disorder': Centre to SC
Imposing fixed timelines on governors and the president to act on bills passed by a state Assembly would amount to one organ of the government assuming powers not vested in it by the Constitution and lead to a " constitutional disorder ", the Centre has told the Supreme Court. Independence Day 2025 Modi signals new push for tech independence with local chips Before Trump, British used tariffs to kill Indian textile Bank of Azad Hind: When Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose gave India its own currency The Centre has said this in the written submissions filed in the Presidential Reference raising constitutional issues on whether timelines could be imposed for dealing with bills passed by a state Assembly. "The alleged failure, inaction or error of one organ does not and cannot authorise another organ to assume powers that the Constitution has not vested in it. If any organ is permitted to arrogate to itself the functions of another on a plea of public interest or institutional dissatisfaction or even on the justification derived from the Constitution ideals, the consequence would be a constitutional disorder not envisaged by its framers," it has said. The note filed by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta has argued that the apex court imposing fixed timelines would dissolve the delicate equilibrium that the Constitution has established and negate the rule of law. "The perceived lapses, if any, are to be addressed through constitutionally-sanctioned mechanisms, such as electoral accountability, legislative oversight, executive responsibility, reference procedures or consultative process amongst democratic organs etc. Thus, Article 142 does not empower the court to create a concept of 'deemed assent', turning the constitutional and legislative process on its head," the note says. Live Events The positions of the governor and president are "politically plenary" and represent "high ideals of democratic governance". Any perceived lapses, the note says, must be addressed through political and constitutional mechanisms, and not necessarily through "judicial" interventions. The perceived issues, if any, deserve political answers and not necessarily judicial, Mehta has submitted. Challenging the decision of the apex court, Mehta has contended that Articles 200 and 201, which deal with the governors' and president's alternatives after receiving a state bill, deliberately contain no timelines. "When the Constitution seeks to impose time limits for taking certain decisions, it specifically mentions such time limits. Where it has consciously kept the exercise of powers flexible, it does not impose any fixed time limit. To judicially read in such a limitation would be to amend the Constitution," Mehta has said. Despite the proliferation of checks and balances, there are certain zones that remain exclusive to either of the three organs of the State and cannot be trenched upon by the others, the note says, adding that the high plenary positions of governors and the president fall within that zone. "The gubernatorial assent is a high prerogative, plenary, non-justiciable power which is sui generis in nature. Although the power of assent is exercised by the person at the apex of the Executive, however, the assent itself is legislative in nature. "This blended and unique nature of assent clothes it with a constitutional character, whereby no judicially-manageable standards exist. Thus, despite the expanding contours of judicial review, there are some zones like assent that remain non-justiciable. The classical notion of judicial review cannot be lifted and applied to assent as the factors at play during the grant or withholding of an assent have no legal or constitutional parallel. The unique duality of assent, thus, deserves a uniquely-calibrated judicial approach," the note says. The top court has fixed a time schedule for hearing the Presidential Reference and proposed to start the hearing from August 19. A five-judge bench headed by Chief Justice of India (CJI) B R Gavai has asked the Centre and states to file their written submissions. Asking the parties to strictly adhere to the timeline, the bench, also comprising Justices Surya Kant, Vikram Nath, P S Narasimha and A S Chandurkar, has said it will first hear the preliminary objections filed by states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, questioning the maintainability of the Presidential Reference, for an hour on August 19. The court has said the Centre and the states supporting the Presidential Reference will be heard on August 19, 20, 21 and 26, while those opposing it will be heard on August 28 and September 2, 3 and 9. In May, President Droupadi Murmu exercised powers under Article 143(1) to know from the top court whether timelines could be imposed by judicial orders for the exercise of discretion by the president while dealing with bills passed by state assemblies. The president's decision came in light of an April 8 verdict of the apex court that was delivered in a matter over the powers of the governor in dealing with bills that were questioned by the Tamil Nadu government. The verdict, for the first time, prescribed that the president should decide on the bills reserved for her consideration by the governor within three months from the date on which such a reference is received. In a five-page reference, Murmu posed 14 questions to the Supreme Court and sought to know its opinion on the powers of the governor and president under Articles 200 and 201 in dealing with bills passed by the state legislature. The verdict had set a timeline for all governors to act on the bills passed by the state assemblies and ruled that the governors do not possess any discretion in the exercise of functions under Article 200 in respect to any bill presented to them and must mandatorily abide by the advice tendered by the council of ministers. It had said state governments can directly approach the Supreme Court if the president withholds assent on a bill sent by a governor for consideration.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
8 hours ago
- Business Standard
Assessee must comply with summons issued by tax authority: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that an assessee must comply with a summons and furnish a response to a show cause notice when it is issued by the central or the state tax authority. "Assessee" under the Income Tax Act of 1961 refers to any individual or entity that holds the legal liability of tax payment or any other financial commitments as specified by the Act. Thus, laying down guidelines to prevent duplication of adjudication by central and state GST authorities, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said that mere issuance of a summons does not enable either the issuing authority or the recipient to ascertain that proceedings have been initiated. "Where a summons or a show cause notice is issued by either the Central or the State tax authority to an assessee, the assessee is, in the first instance, obliged to comply by appearing and furnishing the requisite response, as the case may be. The top court said the respective tax authorities shall communicate with each other to verify the veracity of the assessee's claim after receipt of such intimation. "We say, so as this course of action would obviate needless duplication of proceedings and ensure optimal utilisation of the Department's time, effort, and resources, bearing in mind that action initiated by one authority enures to the benefit of all. "If the claim of the taxable person regarding the overlap of inquiries is found untenable, and the investigations of the two authorities pertain to different 'subject matters,' an intimation to this effect, along with the reasons and a specification of the distinct subject matters, shall be immediately conveyed in writing to the taxable person," the bench added. The apex court said the taxing authorities are well within their rights to conduct an inquiry or investigation until it is ascertained that both authorities are examining the identical liability. Any show cause notice issued in respect of a liability already covered by an existing show cause notice shall be quashed, it said. "However, if the Central or the State tax authority, as the case may be, finds that the matter being inquired into or investigated by it is already the subject of inquiry or investigation by another authority, both authorities shall decide inter se which of them shall continue with the inquiry or investigation. "In such a scenario, the other authority shall duly forward all material and information relating to its inquiry or investigation into the matter to the authority designated to carry the inquiry or investigation to its logical conclusion," the bench said in its August 14 judgement. The judgement came on a plea by Armour Security, a public limited company providing security services and registered with the Delhi GST authorities, involved in a dispute concerning tax demands and investigations. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
