Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(KER) 11307
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Nitin Jamdar, CJ, S.MANU, J
GEORGE PHILIP – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
WP(C) 14203/2024
P.R.VENKATESH, ASHA P.KURIAKOSE, LAKSHMI MEENAKSHI P.R., S.BIJU, SENIOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL, MARTIN JOSE, P.P.PRIJITH(K/233/2005), THOMAS P.KURUVILLA(K/420-B/2005) – FOR R5, R.GITHESH(K/630/2002), AJAY BEN JOSE(K/729/2012), MANJUNATH MENON(K/000474/2015), HARIKRISHNAN S.(K/497/2019), SACHIN JACOB AMBAT(K/734/2016), ANNA LINDA EDEN(K/1201/2020), S.SREEKUMAR (SR.)(S-571)
The court upheld the legality of toll collection after confirming project completion, dismissing the petitioner's claims as unfounded.
Headnote:(A) Public Interest Litigation - Toll collection - National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 - Petition challenging toll collection for an incomplete tunnel project - Court found that the construction was completed and toll collection was lawful - Petitioner's claims were deemed infructuous. (Paras 3, 5, 15)
(B) Writ Petition - Grounds for dismissal - The court ruled that the grievances raised by the petitioner were addressed and thus the petition was not maintainable. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the toll collection for a tunnel that was claimed to be incomplete, but the concessionaire confirmed completion. The National Highways Authority of India affirmed the legality of toll collection.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the construction was complete and the toll collection was justified, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: The main issue was whether the toll could be collected for a tunnel that was claimed to be incomplete.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the completion of the project justified the toll collection, and the petitioner's claims were unfounded.
Result: Writ Petition is accordingly closed.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 8th day of April, 2025
Nitin Jamdar, C.J.
Heard Mr.P.R.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the Petitioners, Mr.S.Biju, learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 and Mr.Thomas P.Kuruvilla, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.5.
2. This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) is filed in respect of levy of toll for the users of road between Mannuthy in Thrissur District and Vadakkencherry in Palakkad District.
3. Before filing the present PIL, a Division Bench of this Court in W.P(C)No.20796 of 2018, by judgment dated 9 March 2021, had issued certain directions for completion of the project in question by October 2021, subject to any unforeseen adverse conditions. This petition was filed raising a grievance that the construction of the tunnel is not complete and the Respondents have started collecting toll for the tunnel portion even though the construction has not been completed which is being undertaken by Respondent No.5, the concessionaire. The prayers in the PIL are as under :
“a) Declare that the respondents cannot collect any toll fee for the tunnel portion as seen from Ext P9 reply issued to the 2nd petitioner P.P.George, which specifically fixed the fee for the tunnel at Rs.69.85, especially when the work which was undertaken by the consessionaire and bound to be completed before the opening of the project and part of the concessionarire agreement and now closed for completion of the said work;
b) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from collecting any amount as toll fee or otherwise for user of the tunnel to the tune of Rs.69.85 as stated in Ext P9 till the tunnel work is completed and opened for the user of the public;”
4. On 28 February 2025, when the Petition came up on board, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that according to his information, the construction of the tunnel is complete and a counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.5, the concessionaire, confirming the said position. However, in the earlier Writ Petition, this Court had placed the mandate on the National Highways Authority of India and it was upto the National Highways Authority of India to confirm that the work is complete. We called upon the National Highways Authority of India to place the statement of the responsible officer on record regarding the completion of the project and the collection of toll.
5. The learned Senior Central Government Counsel appearing for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4 has placed before us an affidavit filed by the Project Director, National Highways Authority of India, PIU, Palakkad. He has stated in the affidavit as under :
“11. Therefore, upon completion of 90% of the Project Highway and issuance of PCC, the 5th Respondent became legally entitled to commence commercial operations and collect toll charges/user fees. Thereafter, upon successful completion of 1.230 km of the balance Project Highway and completion of the various tests stipulated in Article 14 and Schedule I of the Concession Agreement, a cumulative length of 26.955 km (i.e., PCC-1: 25.725 km + PCC-2 1.230 km) was opened for tolling, and user fee was revised with effect from 01.04.2022. Subsequently, upon completion of an additional 1.400 km of the balance Project Highway and completion of the requisite tests as per Article 14 and Schedule I of the Concession Agreement, a total cumulative length of 28.355 km (i.e., PCC-1: 25.725 km + PCC-2: 1.230 km + PCC-3: 1.400 km) was put into tolling, and user fee was revised with effect from 03.11.2022 for the entire Project Highway.
12. Accordingly, the entire length of the Project Highway became operational, and the user fee was rightly levied by the Concessionaire. As per the terms agreed under the Settlement Agreement dated 10th August 2023, the Left Hand Side (LHS) tube of the Kuthiran Tunnel was temporarily closed to carry out certain additional concrete lining works on the tunnel r
