 |
|
The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has delivered a significant verdict regarding the operation of toll plazas within its jurisdiction, emphasizing that these infrastructures should not merely function as revenue-generating mechanisms aimed at extracting money from the public. The division bench, comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary, issued a directive instructing authorities to refrain from establishing any toll plaza within a 60-kilometer radius of National Highway-44. This order followed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Sugandha Sawhney, who argued against the levying of toll taxes at various plazas, including Lakhanpur, Thandi Khui, and Ban, pending the completion of the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway project. The court’s decision underscores the importance of ensuring that toll collection is fair, equitable, and aligned with the actual quality of infrastructure provided to commuters. Sawhney, appearing in person, presented a compelling case, highlighting the severe disruptions caused by the ongoing construction of the expressway, which has been underway since December 2021. She argued that a substantial portion of the highway stretch remained under construction, rendering it inadequate for smooth travel. Despite this, toll fees continued to be collected, in violation of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, which stipulate that toll collection should only commence upon the completion of highway sections. The petitioner emphasized the significant increase in commute times, with daily journeys extending by three to four hours due to construction-related obstacles, diversions, and the general deterioration of the highway. This situation has resulted in increased fuel consumption and accelerated vehicle wear and tear, placing an undue financial burden on the public. The court acknowledged the validity of these concerns, recognizing that toll collection before project completion was unjust and contrary to established regulations. The court’s observations during the proceedings underscored the severity of the issues raised in the petition. It noted that National Highway-44, specifically the stretch from Pathankot to Udhampur, was undergoing extensive construction, including the widening of the highway and the construction of elevated structures. The respondents themselves admitted that these construction activities had necessitated the implementation of service roads and diversions, effectively reducing the four-lane highway to single-lane dirt paths. This situation has caused significant inconvenience and frustration for commuters. The court emphasized that commuters were being unfairly charged toll fees without receiving the corresponding quality of infrastructure that such fees are intended to guarantee. The essence of toll fees, according to the court, is to compensate road users for smooth, safe, and well-maintained highways. Charging tolls for a highway in poor condition represents a violation of fair service, leaving commuters and drivers understandably frustrated. The bench acknowledged that toll fees contribute to the construction, maintenance, and enhancement of high-quality road infrastructure, highways, and expressways, and that toll fees are essential for infrastructure development. However, it stressed that respondents must ensure fair and equitable tolling and that the establishment of toll plazas should not serve merely as a revenue-generating mechanism or to mint money from the general public.
The court further addressed the issue of spacing rules under the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008, which stipulate that toll plazas should not be established within 60 kilometers of each other. The court pointed out that the distance between Sarore Toll Plaza and Ban Toll Plaza on NH-44 was only about 47 kilometers, in violation of these regulations. This breach of rules, the court observed, had led to an illegal accumulation of crores of rupees from the public. The court also expressed concern over the proliferation of toll plazas, stating that the rapid increase in these facilities raises several concerns among the general public. It emphasized that toll plazas should not be placed at every nook and corner of the state and that there should not be a mushrooming of toll plazas. The court highlighted the plight of pilgrims traveling to Katra, noting that a journey from Sarore Toll Plaza to Domel, covering merely 54 kilometers, required commuters to pay at both Sarore and Ban Toll Plazas, resulting in an undue financial burden. The establishment of the Ban Toll Plaza before Domel, the court stated, was a deliberate act to capitalize on the high footfall of pilgrims, thereby exploiting them financially. This observation reflects the court's sensitivity to the financial burdens placed on ordinary citizens and its commitment to ensuring that toll collection practices are fair and transparent. In addition to concerns about spacing and financial burden, the court also expressed concern over reports that toll plaza contractors employed individuals with criminal backgrounds. This, the court emphasized, not only raised public safety concerns but also painted a grim picture of the administration's oversight. The court’s concern for public safety extends to the integrity of the toll collection process and the individuals involved in it. Employing individuals with criminal backgrounds undermines public trust and raises legitimate concerns about the potential for corruption and abuse. To address these issues, the court issued several specific directives. It directed the respondents to withdraw the order of redistributing the influence length between Lakhanpur and Bann Toll Plazas, which was implemented after the closure of the Thandi Khui Toll Plaza. This withdrawal was to be completed within a week. The toll fee at Lakhanpur and Bann Toll Plazas was ordered to be reduced to 20% of the previous rates, with the full toll chargeable only after the issuance of a certificate by an independent surveyor certifying the highway's operational readiness. This directive aims to ensure that toll fees are commensurate with the actual quality of the highway and that commuters are not charged exorbitant rates for substandard infrastructure.
Furthermore, the court barred the establishment of any toll plaza within 60 kilometers of NH-44 and instructed the removal of existing tolls within this range in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh within two months. This directive is a significant step towards enforcing the spacing rules outlined in the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008, and ensuring that toll plazas are not overly concentrated in certain areas. The court stressed that toll fees should not be exorbitant and directed the Ministry of Road, Transport, and Highways to reconsider the toll fees, ensuring they are fair and not a mere revenue-generating mechanism. This directive underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that toll fees are proportionate to the quality of infrastructure provided and that they do not place an undue financial burden on commuters. The court also mandated that neither the respondents nor toll plaza contractors should employ individuals with criminal backgrounds. “Respondents as well as the contractors of the Toll Plazas are directed not to employee any person at the toll plazas having criminal background. Respondents as well as the contractors to deploy the persons at the Toll Plazas only after verification of such employees by the concerned police agency. In case of any deviation in this regard, the concerned SHO/Incharge shall be personally responsible for the same”, the court concluded. This directive is a crucial step towards ensuring public safety and maintaining the integrity of the toll collection process. By requiring verification of employees by the concerned police agency, the court aims to prevent individuals with criminal backgrounds from holding positions of authority at toll plazas. The court's verdict in the Sugandha Sawhney Vs Union Of India case represents a significant victory for commuters in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh. By emphasizing that toll plazas should not merely function as revenue-generating mechanisms and by directing the removal of toll plazas within a 60-kilometer radius of National Highway-44, the court has taken a decisive step towards ensuring that toll collection practices are fair, equitable, and aligned with the actual quality of infrastructure provided to the public. The court’s decision also serves as a reminder to authorities that they must prioritize the interests of commuters and ensure that toll fees are commensurate with the quality of infrastructure provided. The court's emphasis on transparency, fairness, and public safety underscores its commitment to upholding the rights of citizens and ensuring that toll collection practices are conducted in a responsible and ethical manner. This landmark judgment is likely to have a lasting impact on toll collection practices in Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh and may serve as a precedent for similar cases in other parts of the country. The court's unwavering commitment to upholding the rights of citizens and ensuring that toll collection practices are conducted in a responsible and ethical manner is commendable and will undoubtedly contribute to a more just and equitable transportation system.