Karnataka High Court
Mr Manjesh Kumar vs Union Of India on 28 January, 2026
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 7129 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
1. MR MANJESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
S/O M SHIVANNA,
RESIDING AT NO.106,
KANKAPURA ROAD,
RAVUGODLU BOLARE,
BENGALURU 560082
PHONE: 9449695565
2. MR M RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS,
S/O MUNIYAPPA M
RESIDING AT KANKAPURA ROAD,
SADHANAPALYA,
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
PHONE.9886418991
3. MR T MANJUNATHA
Digitally signed AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
by SHWETHA S/O THIPRAIH,
RAGHAVENDRA
RESIDING AT
Location: HIGH
COURT OF NO.92 OFF KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
KARNATAKA NEW STREET NETTIGERE,
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
PHONE.9945038022
4. MR CHELUVARAJU M
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O MUNICHELUVAIAH,
RESIDING AT KANKAPURA ROAD,
SOMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
BENGALURU,
PHONE.94148537686
5. MR VIJAYA KUMARA
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
S/O CHIKKA GUDDAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.258,
SOMANAHALLI 2ND BLOCK,
SOMANAHALLI,
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
BENGALURU
PHONE.9448008100
6. MR HARISH K S
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
S/O G SRINIVASAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.221,
POST OFFICE ROAD,
OPPOSITE POST OFFICE
KAGGALIPURA,
KAGGALIPURA BENGALURU SOUTH,
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
BENGALURU,
PHONE.9448706936
7. MR VENKATESH R
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O RANGAIAH,
RESIDING AT NO.32 A UTTARI,
KAGLIPURA, BENGALURU SOUTH-
560082,
BENGALURU,
PHONE.9980333907
8. MR NADEEM PASHA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O MAHABOOB SAB,
RESIDING AT NO.97
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD,
BEHIND PETRO BANK,
PATTAREDDIPALAYA KAGGLIPURA
BENGALURU SOUTH 560082,
BENGALURU,
PHONE 9845094791
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. B.S. SHRINIVAS., ADVOCATE)
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
AND
1. UNION OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS
,
TRANSPORT BHAVAN,
NO.1 PARLIAMENT STREET,
NEW DELHI 110001,
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
2. THE NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA
G 5 AND 6, SECTOR 10,
DWARKA,
NEW DELHI 110075,
BY ITS SECRETARY
3. THE PROJECT DIRECTOR
NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
G5 AND 6, SECTOR-10,
DWARKA,
NEW DELHI-110075
4. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION UNIT-RAMANAGAR,
BASAVANAPUR (RAMADEVARAPADA),
RAMANAGARA 562128
REP BY ITS PROJECT DIRECTOR.
5. ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA,
RAMNAGAR 571510
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY,
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU 560001
.... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. CHANDRA CHUD., ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. SRUTI CHAGANTI., ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5;
SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION;
DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO SHIFT THE TOLL PLAZA
CONSTRUCTED AT KM 448+900 (SOMANAHALLI VILLAGE),
NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO. 2090 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING
BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.12.2025, THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CAV ORDER
1. The petitioners are before the Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ, order or direction; directing the
Respondents to shift the toll plaza constructed at Km
448+900 (Somanahalli Village), National Highway
No.2090.
b. In the alternative direct the Respondents to construct
service road/ alternative road for easy movement of
the Petitioners between Somnahalli village, Nelagulli
village Kaggalipura village in Kanakapura Taluk,
Ramanagara District;
c. Direct the respondents to install closed user fee
collection system as per Rule 3 of the National
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection)
Amendment Rules, 2022;
d. Grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court
deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the
case, in the interest of justice and equity.
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
2. The petitioners No.1 to 5 claim to be local residents
of Somanahalli and Nelaguli Village who keep
travelling to Kaggalipura for their daily needs for
visiting Government Hospital, Banks, Police Station,
Veterinary Hospital, Agriculture Farmer Centre,
Fertilizer Shops, Schools, Colleges, KSRTC Express
Bus Stop, Range Forest Office, Post Office, BESCOM
office, Markets, Private Nursing Home, Petrol Bunks,
Etc., Petitioners No.1 to 8 claim to be residents
Kaggalipura who possess lands in Somanahalli and
Nelaguli Village requiring them to travel to look after
their lands and other works.
3. Respondent No.1-Union of India, Minister of Road
Transport and Highways had entrusted the
respondent No.2-National Highway Authority of India
("NHAI") the Development, Maintenance and
Management of National Highway No.209 in the
State of Karnataka by two/four laning the existing
road on a design, build, operate and transfer basis
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
which would be partly financed by the
concessionaire, who shall recover its investment and
cost through payments to be made to the respondent
No.2.
4. Respondent No.2-NHAI, accordingly, invited
proposals by its request for proposal (RFP) dated
13.04.2016 for shortlisting of bidders for
construction, operation and maintenance of the
above project on a hybrid annuity basis, on the basis
of which certain bidders were shortlisted. Thereafter,
Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with
one of the concessionaires. The said concessionaire
could not complete the work, and respondent No.1
called for new tenders and entered into a new
agreement with a new concessionaire.
5. The petitioners, as indicated above, are residents of
Somanahalli, Nelaguli, and Kaggalipura Village
Panchayats, situated on the Bengaluru-Kanakapura
Highway and all the petitioners having agricultural
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
land situated within the said panchayats are required
to travel to and fro each of the panchayats.
6. The respondent No.1, intending to start the operation
of the toll plaza constructed at Somanahalli Village,
which is within 3 Km from two other village
panchayat areas, had sought certain information
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short
"RTI") about the toll plaza and the distance between
each of the toll plazas. As regards which a reply had
been issued on 07.10.2023 stating that, as per the
concession agreement, three numbers of toll plazas
are proposed on NH-209 from BRT Tiger Reserve to
Bengaluru South, the first one at (Km 298+940) as
Harapanahalli Village, second at (Km 359+800) at
Sathyagala Village and at (Km 448+900)
Somanahalli Village.
7. In that view of the matter, the petitioners submitted
representations on 30.10.2023, 24.11.2023 to
respondents No.4 and 5 viz., the National Highway
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit and
the Assistant Executive Engineer, NHAI respectively,
requesting them to shift the toll plaza at Somanahalli
Village or to form a service road for the easy travel
between the aforesaid Village Panchayats, the said
representation was not considered however the
construction of a toll plaza was commenced.
8. The Kaggalipura, Taralu and Somanahalli Gram
Panchayats had also requested respondent No.4 not
to put up the toll plaza, until and unless service
roads have been provided to ease the free movement
of people residing in their respective panchayat
areas. These representations, having been
submitted on 23.11.2023 were also not considered;
the construction of the toll plaza proceeded with.
9. The petitioners are now before this Court on the
ground that a new concessionaire is completing the
work of the toll plaza and would start collecting toll
from the petitioners who are residents of the said
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
village panchayats and they not having any other
alternate road/service road except the National
Highway, every time they have to go from one
panchayat area to the other or from their house to
their agriculture fields or to access any of their basic
amenities would have to cross the toll plaza by
making payment of the toll fee which has been
prescribed, which would cause undue hardship and
inconvenience to them.
10. The petitioners residing in the suburbs of Bangalore
also required to travel to Bangalore which is 10 to 15
Km would have to pay the toll fee every time they
cross the toll plaza. It is in that background, that the
petitioners are before this Court seeking for the
aforesaid reliefs.
11. Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners,
would submit that;
11.1. The requirement of travel for the petitioners
and the residence being a regular requirement
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
on a day-to-day basis, they would have to
travel to and fro crossing the toll plaza on
several occasions during the day and each time,
they would be required to make payment of the
toll fee which is an undue burden on them,
since neither the Union, the State nor the NHAI
has provided any alternative travel route which
does not involve payment of toll fee.
11.2. His submission is that the toll fee has been
fixed for the distance between Somanahalli and
the next toll plaza at Sathyagala Village, which
is nearly 89 Km apart. The toll fee having been
fixed for 89 Km the residents would have to
make payment of the said toll fee even though
they are using the road for only 10 to 15 Km
and such fee has to be paid multiple times,
each time that the petitioners pass through the
toll plaza.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
11.3. The petitioners have submitted their
representations way back in the year 2023. The
panchayats have also submitted a
representation in the year 2023. The
panchayats representing the residents in their
respective jurisdiction. None of these
Representations have been considered nor any
reply received thereto. The respondents have in
a high-handed and arbitrary manner proceeded
with and completed the construction of the toll
plaza, now requiring the petitioner to make
payment of the toll fee for 89 Km every time
that they use the toll plaza.
11.4. His submission is that the location of the toll
plaza itself is contrary to Rule 8(1) of
the National Highways Fee (Determination of
Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (for short
hereinafter referred to as "Fee Rules, 2008").
His submission is that a toll plaza would have to
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
be established beyond a distance of 10 Km
from a municipal or local town area limits,
though the panchayat would not be classified as
a municipal or local town area. The fact remains
that the panchayats are situated very close to
the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Limits
and as such their representation ought to have
been considered favourably.
11.5. He submits now that the Greater Bangalore
Authority (for short "GBA") has been
established, the jurisdiction of the GBA extends
beyond Somanahalli Village and as such, the
toll plaza, which is yet to be made operational,
is within the jurisdiction of the GBA. Thus, the
same would fall foul of Sub-section (1) of
Section 8 of the fee Rules 2008, the same
coming within the GBA limits. When in fact
under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the fee
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
Rules 2008 a toll plaza can only be established
10 Km from the municipal limits.
11.6. His submission is also that the Executing
Authority has not considered the representation
and has not recorded any reasons in writing as
to why the toll plaza has to be located at the
place chosen which is now within the limits of
GBA and as such the residents being forced to
make payment of the toll fee they being poor
farmers cannot be expected to make payment
of such toll fee on a regular basis.
11.7. It is the bounden duty on part of the
government to provide free access by way of
roads it would have been for them to provide a
service road which could have been used by the
petitioners free of cost instead no service road
having been provided, the petitioners would be
forced to use the toll road and make payment
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
of the toll fee at the toll plaza for every use.
11.8. By referring to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Fee
Rules 2008, he submits that a Closed User Fee
Collection System could be established by the
NHAI to cater to such a requirement which is
also not being provided. The Closed User Fee
Collecting System contemplating that fee can
only be collected on the actual distance
travelled by a mechanical vehicle on a national
highway or expressway. Most cases, the
petitioners being required to travel between 5
to 15 Km on the actual distance travelled fee
could have been levied which also has not been
done.
11.9. The situation is such that there being no fuel
station on the National Highway, even for
refueling their vehicles the petitioners would
have to cross the Toll Plaza refuel and get back
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
to their residence as regards which also toll fee
has to be paid.
11.10. These aspects violate Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of
the Constitution of India inasmuch as the free
movement and travel of the petitioners are
adversely affected by establishing such a toll
plaza.
11.11. On that basis, the actions on part of the
respondent are completely arbitrary, the fee
sought to be collected is disproportionate to the
use of the road. Even otherwise, the toll road
being a special situation to enable persons to
make a choice to travel by toll road there being
no choice available to the petitioners to use a
service road, since no service road has been
provided is also violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
11.12. On that basis, he submits that the above
petition is required to be allowed and the relief
sought for to be granted.
12. Ms.Sruti Chaganti., learned counsel appearing for the
NHAI-Respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that;
12.1. The petitioners have had a misunderstanding of
Rule 8(1) of the Fee Rules, 2008. The distance
of 10 Km is only prescribed from a municipal or
a town area limit, there is no stipulation
regarding the distance of a toll plaza from a
village panchayat limit. At the time when the
toll plaza was established there being no
municipal or town area limit within 10 Km of
such toll plaza the establishment of toll plaza is
proper and correct.
12.2. Her submission is that the BBMP vide its letter
dated 15.12.2023 confirmed that the BBMP
limit ends at Kanakapura Nice Road junction
i.e., that at KM 458.500 ,the toll plaza being
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
constructed at (Km 448+900) is beyond 10 Km
and therefore, there is no violation of Sub-rule
(1) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008.
12.3. Her submission is that the petitioners would not
be required to make payment of the toll fee for
the entire extent of 89 Km being the distance
between the Somanahalli and Sathyagala toll
plazas. In that regard, she relies upon Sub-rule
(4) of Rule 3 of the Fee Rules, 2008 in terms of
which no fee shall be levied for the use of the
section of National Highway, permanent bridge,
bypass or tunnel as the case may be by two-
wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors, combined
harvester and animal drawn vehicle. Thus, the
petitioners if they were to use, any of the above
would not be required to make payment of any
toll fee for the use of the toll road and the toll
plaza.
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
12.4. By referring to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Fee
Rules, 2008 she submits that insofar as other
vehicles like cars or non-commercial vehicles
are concerned for persons who reside within a
distance of 20 km from a fee plaza could obtain
a monthly pass, the rate of which would be
determined in accordance with Rule 5. The
monthly fee computed for the year 2024-25
under Rule 5 in that regard is Rs.340/- per
calendar month and as such, the petitioners
can avail of such pass by paying a sum of
Rs.340/- per calendar month irrespective of
number of travels made every day during the
said calendar month.
12.5. Thus, she submits that the contention of the
petitioners that they would have to make
payment of the toll fee every time they pass
the toll plaza, calculated for 89 Km being the
distance between Somanahalli and Sathyagala
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
Village is totolly false and a misunderstanding
of the applicable law.
12.6. She submits that there is no requirement to
provide service lanes near or along a toll plaza
as per the guidelines and code provisions
issued by the Indian Road Congress or in terms
of the concession agreement and as such, there
is no vested right with the petitioners to claim
for construction of a service road along the toll
road or near the toll plaza.
12.7. Insofar as Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Fee
Rules, 2008, she submits that it is only an
option available to NHAI introduced by way of
amendment in the year 2022, which permits
the NHAI to establish a fee plaza on any
National Highway or Expressway in the manner
as done or to provide a Closed User Fee
Collection System. The same does not obligate
NHAI to make available a closed user fee toll
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
plaza or tolling system and such a Closed Fee
Collection System if provided, no monthly
passes would be so provided. The NHAI have
made available monthly passes; there would be
no requirement for introducing a Closed User
Fee Tolling System. On that basis, she
submitted that monthly passes are an effective
alternative for Closed User Fee Collection
Systems.
12.8. Her submission is that under the concession
agreement, the Section of NH-209 from BRT
Tiger Reserve boundary to Bengaluru South is
not designed as a closed tolling system but is
designed only as an open tolling system
consisting of four lane sections. The said
concession agreement, having been executed
on 08.12.2016, was prior to the amendment in
the year 2022 to the Fee Rules, 2008 and as
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
such the amendment made in the year 2022
would not be applicable to the present facts.
12.9. The Manual of Specifications and Standards for
Four-Laning of Highways through Public-Private
Partnership, issued by the Indian Road
Congress in 2014, has been followed in its
entirety. The said manual does not provide for
service road, nor does it provide for Closed
User Fee Collection System, nor does it exempt
a person using the toll plaza from making
payment of the toll fee merely because he is a
resident of the neighbouring area.
12.10. Insofar as the Constitution of the GBA, she
submitted that the Constitution happened on
03.03.2025 much prior to which the concession
agreement was entered into in the year 2016,
and as such the subsequent Constitution of the
GBA under which the aforesaid area comes
under now would not make Sub-rule (1) of Rule
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
8 of the Fee Rules, 2008 is applicable requiring
a toll plaza already constructed to be removed.
12.11. Her submission is that a notification for the
establishment of the toll plaza at
Somanahalli/Kaggalipura had been issued on
04.12.2024 prior to GBA being constituted on
03.03.2025.
12.12. She relies on Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 9 of the
Fee Rules, 2008 to contend that a person who
owns a mechanical vehicle registered for non-
commercial purpose having a valid and
functional fast tag shall be eligible to obtain a
pass on payment of fee of Rs.3000/- which
shall be valid for one year or for 200 crossings
through any fee plaza on a National Highway,
whichever is earlier irrespective of the fee
leviable at each fee plaza, as also the proviso
thereto to contend that in a Closed User Fee
Collection System, entry and exit of a
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
mechanical vehicle through a free plaza shall be
considered as a single crossing. She therefore
submits that Sub-rule (3)(a) having been
introduced for this very purpose, any person
can obtain a pass which would be valid for a
year by making payment of sum of Rs.3,000/-
and as such, it cannot be contended by the
petitioners that they would be required to pay
the toll fee for 89 Km every time that they
cross the toll plaza.
12.13. On that basis, she submits that the petition is
required to be dismissed. The respondents to
be permitted to make the Toll Plaza operational
and start collecting the toll fee in respect at the
said Toll Plaza. If the petitioners so wish, they
could always obtain a pass as indicated supra.
13. Heard Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner, Ms.Shruti Chaganti, learned
counsel appearing for the NHAI and perused papers.
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
14. The points that would arise for consideration are;
1. Whether the location of the Toll Plaza at
Somanahalli violates Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection)
Rules, 2008?
2. Whether the levy of toll without
providing a service route or an alternate
route is arbitrary and unreasonable,
violating Article 14, 19(1)(d) and Article
21 of the Constitution?
3. Whether toll collection without
installation of a Closed User Fee
Collection System violates Sub-rule (3)
of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection)
Rules, 2008?
4. What order?
15. I answer the above points as under;
16. Answer to point No.1 and 2: Whether the
location of the Toll Plaza at Somanahalli
violates Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the National
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008?
And
Whether the levy of toll without providing a
service route or an alternate route is arbitrary
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
and unreasonable, violating Article 14, 19(1)(d)
and Article 21 of the Constitution?
16.1. Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules,
2008, is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference;
3. Levy of fee. (1) The Central Government may by
notification, levy fee for use of any section of national
highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel forming
part of the national highway, as the case may be, in
accordance with the provisions of these rules:
Provided that the Central Government may, by
notification, exempt any section of national highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel constructed
through a public funded project from levy lev of such
fee or part thereof, and subject to such conditions as
may be specified in that notification.
(2) The collection of fee levied under sub-rule (1) of
rule 3, shall commence within forty-five days from the
date of completion of the section of national highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may
be, constructed through a public funded project.
(4) No fee shall be levied for the use of the section of
national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel,
as the case may be, by two wheelers, three wheelers,
tractors, combine harvesters) and animal-drawn
vehicles:
Provided that three wheelers, tractors, combine
harvesters) and animal-drawn vehicles shall not be
allowed to use the section of national highway,
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may
be, where a service road or alternative road is available
in lieu of the said national highway, permanent bridge,
bypass or tunnel:
Provided further that where service road or
alternative road is available and the owner, driver or
the person in charge of two wheeler is making use of
the section of national highway, permanent bridge,
bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, he or she shall
charged fifty per cent. of the fee levied on a car.
Explanation. For the purposes of this rule,-
(a) "alternative road" means such other road, the
carriageway of which is more than ten metres wide and
the length of which does not exceed the corresponding
length of such section of national highway by twenty
per cent. thereof;
(b) "service road" means a road running parallel to a
section of the national highway which provides access
to the land adjoining such section of the national
highway.
(5) The fee notified by the Central Government under
these rules shall be rounded off and levied in multiple
of the nearest Rupees five.
16.2. A plain reading of Rule 3 of the National
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008, indicates that the
Central Government is empowered, by
notification, to levy a fee for the use of any
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
section of a National Highway, permanent
bridge, bypass or tunnel forming part of a
National Highway, strictly in accordance with
the provisions of the said Rules.
16.3. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 confers a
discretion upon the Central Government to
exempt any section of a National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel constructed
through a public-funded project from the levy
of such fee, either wholly or in part, subject to
such conditions as may be specified in the
notification.
16.4. In the present case, it is an admitted position
that the project is not a public-funded project
but is executed through a private
concessionaire. Consequently, the proviso to
sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 has no application. Sub-
rule (2) of Rule 3 prescribes the time for
commencement of fee collection, while sub-rule
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
(3) governs private investment projects, such
as the present one, where a concessionaire is
selected through a bidding process, and
mandates that the fee shall be levied in
accordance with the concession agreement.
Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 further provides that no
fee shall be levied for the use of a section of a
National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or
tunnel by two-wheelers, three-wheelers,
tractors and animal-drawn vehicles.
16.5. The first proviso to sub-rule (4) stipulates that
where a service road or an alternate road is
available in lieu of the National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, three-
wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles
shall not be permitted to use the National
Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel,
as the case may be.
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
16.6. Thus, where no service road or alternate road is
provided, the use of a National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel by two-
wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors and animal-
drawn vehicles cannot be subjected to any levy
of toll. Conversely, where a service road or an
alternate road is made available, three-
wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles
are barred from using the National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel.
16.7. The second proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3
further clarifies that even where a service road
or alternate road is available, if a two-wheeler
nevertheless uses a section of the National
Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel,
such user is liable to pay fifty per cent of the
toll fee leviable on a car.
16.8. Accordingly, a two-wheeler user is afforded a
choice: free use of the service road or alternate
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
road, or paid use of the National Highway at
fifty per cent of the fee applicable to a car.
16.9. Explanation (1) to Rule 3 defines the
expressions "alternate road" and "service road".
However, in the present case, it is an admitted
position that neither a service road nor an
alternate road has been provided.
Consequently, the definitional content of the
Explanation does not arise for consideration,
and the legal consequences flowing from the
absence of such roads must follow.
16.10. Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008, provides for the
location of a toll plaza. Rule 8 of the Fee Rules,
2008, is reproduced hereunder for easy
reference.
8. Location of toll plaza.-(1) The executing authority
or the concessionaire, as the case may be, shall
establish a [fee plaza] beyond a distance of kilometres
from a municipal or local town area limits:
Provided that the executing authority may, for
reasons to be recorded in writing, locate or allow the
concessionaire to locate a [fee plaza) within a distance
of ten kilometres of such municipal or local town area
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
limits, but it no case within five kilometres of such
municipal or local town area limits;
Provided further that where a section of the
national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel,
as the case may be, is constructed within the municipal
or town area limits or within five kilometres from such
limits, primarily use of the residents of such municipal or
town area, the [fee plaza) ma established within the
municipal or town area limits or within a distance f
kilometres from such limits.
(2) Any other fee plaza] on the same section of national
highway and the same direction shall not be established
within a distance of sixty kilometes;
Provided that where the executing authority
deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in
writing, establish or allow the concessionaire establish
another fee plaza within a distance of sixty kilometres:
Provided further that a fee plaza may be
established within a distance of sixty kilometres from
another fee plaza if such fee plaza is for collection fee
for a permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel.
16.11. A plain reading of Rule 8 of the National
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008, indicates that the
executing authority or the concessionaire, as
the case may be, is required to establish a toll
plaza beyond a distance of ten kilometres from
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
the limits of a municipal or local town area. The
rationale underlying this stipulation is evident:
Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 seeks to ensure that the
residents of municipal or local town areas are
not impeded in their free and routine
movement by the imposition of tolls for short-
distance daily travel.
16.12. The first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8
carves out a limited exception, permitting the
establishment of a toll plaza within a distance of
ten kilometres from such municipal or local
town area limits, subject to two mandatory
conditions. First, the executing authority must
record reasons in writing justifying such
location; and second, even in such cases, the
toll plaza cannot, under any circumstances, be
located within five kilometres of the municipal
or local town area limits.
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
16.13. Thus, even where the exception under the first
proviso is invoked, the statute imposes a clear
and absolute embargo against the
establishment of a toll plaza within five
kilometres of municipal or local town area
limits. The discretion conferred on the
executing authority or the concessionaire is,
therefore, narrowly circumscribed and cannot
be exercised in derogation of this express
statutory prohibition.
16.14. The second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8
operates in a distinct and limited field. It
applies where a section of a National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel is
constructed within the municipal or town area
limits, or within five kilometres thereof, and is
intended primarily for the use of the residents
of such municipal or town area. In such
exceptional circumstances, a toll plaza may be
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
established within the municipal or town area
limits or within five kilometres from such limits.
16.15. The determinative expression in the second
proviso is "primarily for the use of the residents
of such municipal or town area". This
necessarily implies that the exception is
confined to cases where the infrastructure is
designed predominantly to serve the local
population, and not where the highway or
facility caters substantially to through traffic or
persons travelling from outside the municipal or
town area.
16.16. Consequently, the exception carved out under
the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8
would have no application where the National
Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel is
predominantly used by persons who are not
residents of the municipal or town area. The
rationale is self-evident: while non-residents
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
may use such infrastructure only occasionally,
the residents of the municipal or town area
would be compelled to use it on a daily and
recurring basis for access to essential services.
16.17. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, which prohibits the
establishment of another toll plaza on the same
section of a National Highway and in the same
direction within a distance of sixty kilometres,
does not directly arise for consideration in the
present case, as the grievance of the
petitioners is not founded on the proximity of
toll plazas inter se. The grievance, rather, is
that the distance between the Somanahalli toll
plaza and the next toll plaza is approximately
eighty-nine kilometres, resulting in the
petitioners being compelled to pay toll
calculated for the entire stretch, despite using
only a small portion thereof. It is, however,
relevant to note that since the next toll plaza is
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
situated at a distance of about eighty-nine
kilometres, the statutory restriction of
maintaining a minimum distance of sixty
kilometres between toll plazas leaves a buffer
of nearly twenty-nine kilometres, within which
the Somanahalli toll plaza could be shifted, if
required, without infringing the mandate of
sub-rule (2) of Rule 8.
16.18. The expression "establish" occurring in sub-rule
(1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules,
2008, cannot be construed in a purely physical
or construction-centric sense divorced from its
statutory purpose. A toll plaza, though
structurally erected, does not visit any legal or
civil consequence upon residents until it is
made operational and toll collection
commences. Rule 8 is a resident-protective
provision intended to prevent routine and
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
compulsory toll imposition on inhabitants of
municipal or local town areas for short-distance
daily travel. Any interpretation that freezes
compliance as on the date of approval or
construction, irrespective of subsequent
inclusion within municipal limits prior to
commencement of toll collection, would defeat
the object of the Rule and permit the very
mischief it seeks to avoid. Accordingly, for the
purposes of Rule 8, the establishment of a toll
plaza must necessarily be read as
establishment for the purpose of levy and
collection of fee.
16.19. Rule 9 of the Fee Rules 2008 deals with
discounts offered for usage of such National
Highway, the said Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008
is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;
9. Discounts. (1) The executing authority or the
concessionaire, as the case may be, provide for multiple
journey to cross a toll plaza within the specified period
at the rates specified in sub-rule(2) of rule 9.
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
(2) A driver, owner or person in-charge of a mechanical
vehicle who makes use of the section of national
highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, and he
or she shall have to pay the fee in accordance with the
following rates, namely:
Amount payable Maximum Period of validity
number of
one way
journeys
allowed
One and half times Two Twenty-four hours from
of the fee for one the time of payment
way journey
Two-third of amount Fifty One month from date of
of the fee payable payment
for fifty single
journeys.
(3) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle [with valid
functional FASTag] registered for non-commercial
purposes and uses it as such for commuting on a section
of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or
tunnel, may obtain a pass, on payment of fee at the
base rate for the year 2007-2008 of rupees one hundred
and fifty per calendar month and revised annually in
accordance with rule 5, authorising it to cross the '[fee
plaza] specified in such pass:
Provided that such pass shall be issued only if
such driver, owner or person in-charge of such
mechanical vehicle resides within a distance of twenty
kilometres from the [fee plaza] specified by such person
and the use of such section of national highway,
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may
be, does not extend beyond the [fee plaza] next to the
specified [fee plaza]:
Provided further that no such pass shall be issued
if a service road or alternative road is available for use
by such driver, owner or person in-charge of a
mechanical vehicle.
(3A) A person, who owns a commercial vehicle
(excluding vehicle plying under National Permit), 3[with
valid functional FASTag] registered with address on the
Registration Certificate of a particular district and uses
such vehicle for commuting on a section of the National
Highway, permanent bridge, tunnel or bypass, as the
case may be, which is located within that district, shall
be levied user fee on all [fee plazas] which are located
within that district, at the rate of fifty per cent of the
prescribed rate of fee:
Provided that no such concession shall be
provided, if a service road or alternative road is
available for use by such commercial vehicles.
(3B) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle registered
for non-commercial purpose, having a valid and
functional Fastag, shall be eligible to obtain a pass on
payment of fee of rupees three thousand which shall be
valid for one year or for two hundred crossings through
any fee plaza on a national highway, whichever is
earlier, irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza;
Provided that in a closed user fee collection
system, entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a
fee plaza shall be considered as a single crossing.
(3C) The amount of fee payable under sub-rule (3B)
may be revised annually with effect from the 1st April of
every year in accordance with rule 5."
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
(4) No pass shall be issued or fee collected from a
driver, owner or person in-charge of a mechanical
vehicle that uses part of the section of a national
highway and does not cross a [fee plaza].
16.20. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the National Highways
Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection)
Rules, 2008, provides for the issuance of
passes enabling multiple journeys through a toll
plaza within a specified period, at the rates
prescribed under sub-rule (2) thereof.
16.21. In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, a driver,
owner or person in charge of a mechanical
vehicle using a section of a National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel may opt for
such passes and pay the fee in accordance with
the rates set out in the table appended thereto,
namely, one and a half times the fee for a
single journey for two crossings within twenty-
four hours, or two-thirds of the fee payable for
fifty single journeys valid for one month. Such a
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
pass, however, is expressly limited to fifty
single journeys, and upon exhaustion of the
said limit, the user would be required to pay
the regular toll fee.
16.22. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 further provides that a
person owning a mechanical vehicle registered
for non-commercial purposes and using it for
commuting on a section of a National Highway,
permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel may obtain
a monthly pass on payment of fee at the base
rate of the year 2007-2008, namely Rs.150/-
per calendar month, revised annually in
accordance with Rule 5, authorising such
person to cross the toll plaza specified in the
pass.
16.23. The first proviso to sub-rule (3) stipulates that
such a pass shall be issued only if the owner,
driver or person in charge of the vehicle resides
within a distance of twenty kilometres from the
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
specified toll plaza, and the use of the National
Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel
does not extend beyond the toll plaza next to
the specified toll plaza.
16.24. The second proviso to sub-rule (3) provides
that no such pass shall be issued if a service
road or an alternate road is available for use by
such driver, owner or person in charge of a
mechanical vehicle.
16.25. Reading sub-rule (3) together with its provisos,
it follows that a monthly pass may be issued to
a person residing within a radius of twenty
kilometres from the toll plaza, at the prescribed
base rate (as revised), only in the absence of a
service road or an alternate road. It is on this
basis that Ms. Shruti Chaganti, learned counsel
for the National Highways Authority of India,
has contended that the petitioners are entitled
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
to avail such a pass on payment of the
currently applicable rate of Rs.340/- per month.
16.26. She has further relied upon the amendment to
Rule 9 by which an additional proviso has been
introduced, providing that where a Closed User
Fee Collection System is implemented, no such
pass would be issued. On that premise, it is
contended that there is no statutory obligation
on the part of the respondents to implement a
Closed User Fee Collection System, nor do the
petitioners have any vested right to demand
such implementation, and that the availability
of a monthly pass on payment of Rs.340/-
constitutes an adequate alternative.
16.27. I'am unable to accept the aforesaid contention.
The scheme of Rule 9 operates in a distinct field
and presupposes the lawful establishment and
operation of a toll plaza in accordance with Rule
8 of the Fee Rules, 2008. The availability of
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
discounted or concessional passes under Rule 9
is intended only to mitigate the incidence of toll
for certain categories of users and cannot be
construed as a substitute for compliance with
the mandatory location restrictions prescribed
under Rule 8, nor can it legitimise the levy of
toll in circumstances where local residents are
left with no real choice but to repeatedly
traverse the toll plaza for access to essential
services. A measure which compels payment as
the only means of exercising a fundamental
freedom of travel, in the absence of any
reasonable alternative, fails the test of
proportionality, as the restriction imposed is
neither necessary nor the least restrictive
means of achieving the stated object. A paid
pass, even at a concessional rate, does not
alter the character of the levy where the
imposition itself is rendered compulsory by the
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
absence of any service road or alternate road.
The contention that the availability of a monthly
pass obviates the need either to comply with
Rule 8 or to consider alternate access
mechanisms is, therefore, untenable.
16.28. In Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 9 of the Fee Rules,
2008 was introduced by way of amendment on
12.01.2011, which reads as under;
(3A) A person, who owns a commercial vehicle
(excluding vehicle plying under National Permit), 3[with
valid functional FASTag] registered with address on the
Registration Certificate of a particular district and uses
such vehicle for commuting on a section of the National
Highway, permanent bridge, tunnel or bypass, as the
case may be, which is located within that district, shall
be levied user fee on all [fee plazas] which are located
within that district, at the rate of fifty per cent of the
prescribed rate of fee:
Provided that no such concession shall be
provided, if a service road or alternative road is
available for use by such commercial vehicles.
16.29. A plain reading of sub-rule (3A) indicates that it
provides a limited concession to owners of
certain categories of commercial vehicles
registered within a district, permitting levy of
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
user fee at fifty per cent of the prescribed rate
at fee plazas located within that district, subject
to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated
therein.
16.30. The proviso to sub-rule (3A) expressly
stipulates that no such concession shall be
available where a service road or an alternate
road is provided. Consequently, sub-rule (3A)
contemplates a regime where, in the absence of
a service road or alternate road, even locally
registered commercial vehicles are required to
pay fifty per cent of the applicable toll fee for
each passage through the toll plaza. This
provision, therefore, does not alleviate the
grievance of the petitioners but, on the
contrary, reinforces the fact that in the absence
of any free or alternate access, local users,
including those operating within the same
- 47 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
district, are compelled to make recurring toll
payments.
16.31. Accordingly, sub-rule (3A) of Rule 9, which
merely reduces the quantum of toll payable in
specified circumstances, neither addresses the
statutory infraction arising under Rule 8 nor
cures the constitutional infirmity occasioned by
compelling local residents to repeatedly pay toll
in the absence of any service road or alternate
route.
16.32. Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008 was
introduced by way of amendment on
17.06.2025, which reads as under;
(3B) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle
registered for non-commercial purpose, having a
valid and functional Fastag, shall be eligible to
obtain a pass on payment of fee of rupees three
thousand which shall be valid for one year or for
two hundred crossings through any fee plaza on
a national highway, whichever is earlier,
irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza;
Provided that in a closed user fee collection
system, entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle
- 48 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
through a fee plaza shall be considered as a
single crossing.
16.33. Sub-rule (3B) of Rule 9 of the National
Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008, was introduced by way
of amendment dated 17.06.2025. It enables a
person owning a non-commercial mechanical
vehicle with a valid and functional FASTag to
obtain a pass on payment of a fee of Rs.3,000/-
, valid for one year or for two hundred
crossings through any fee plaza on a National
Highway, whichever is earlier, irrespective of
the fee leviable at each fee plaza.
16.34. The proviso to sub-rule (3B) stipulates that in a
Closed User Fee Collection System, the entry
and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a fee
plaza shall be treated as a single crossing. Sub-
rule (3B), therefore, is a general provision
applicable to all eligible users and not one
- 49 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
specifically tailored to local residents or persons
compelled to make repeated short-distance
journeys.
16.35. Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008, therefore, is
a provision which applies in general to all
persons and not only to the residents of that
area and in terms of Sub-rule (3B) of Fee
Rules, 2008, any person having a functional
FASTTAG can obtain a pass by making payment
of a fee of Rs.3,000/- which shall be valid for
200 crossings. That is to say, it is not an
unlimited pass but is limited to 200 crossings.
Thus, Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008 in my
considered opinion, will also not be of any help
to the petitioners who are likely to make use of
the toll plaza on multiple occasions on a day.
Even if it were to be taken that they use the toll
plaza only once a day, then they could use the
toll plaza only 200 days in a year by making
- 50 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
payment of a sum of Rs.3000/- and not use it
for more than 200 times.
16.36. Insofar as Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Fee Rules,
2008 is concerned, the submission of Ms.Shruti
Chaganti, learned counsel for NHAI, is that if
the petitioners were to make payment of sum
of Rs.340/- per month, which is revisable every
year, they could use the toll plaza on unlimited
occasions. Thus, in my considered opinion, it is
only Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Fee Rules, 2008,
which could be considered by this Court to
assess if the rights of the petitioners under
Article 19(d) and 21 of the Constitution are
impinged by levy of such a fee.
16.37. As indicated supra, the petitioners are
residents of the surrounding areas of the toll
plaza and/or required to make use of the toll
plaza to access any of their daily requirements,
including refueling of the vehicle in such a
- 51 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
situation where there is no alternate road or a
service road established, it would but be
required for the petitioner to make use of the
toll plaza by making payment of the toll fee or
availing of the pass under Sub-rule (3) of Rule
9 of the Fee Rules, 2008.
16.38. What would have to be considered is that many
of these residents are small farmers who would
be required to cross the toll plaza, though no
toll fee is required to be paid for crossing of the
toll plaza by use of a two-wheeler, three-
wheeler, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles.
The fact remains that in today's world, a car,
which is a four-wheeler, is no longer a luxury
but is one that is available with most of the
people, if a four wheeler is used to cross the
toll, the toll fee is required to be paid. Thus,
the argument of the NHAI would only be that
the residents not use a car, but use a two-
- 52 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
wheeler or a three-wheeler or a tractor to cross
a tall plaza, thereby virtually calling upon the
residences not to use their cars, which in my
consider opinion would be a restriction of their
right to travel under Article 19(1)(d) and Article
21 of the Constitution.
16.39. As indicated supra, the reasons why, under
Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008 a toll plaza is to
be established more than 10 Km from the
municipal or local town area limits is so as to
not cause any fetter on the movement of the
residents of the area.
16.40. In the present case, though the GBA has been
established subsequently in the year 2025, the
fact remains that the Toll Plaza has not been
made operational at the time when the GBA
was established and with the GBA being
established, the Toll Plaza has now come within
the limits of the GBA. Thus, ex-facie
- 53 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
contravening the requirement of Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008.
16.41. I am unable to accept the arguments of
Ms.Shruti Chaganti., learned counsel for the
NHAI that when the Toll Plaza was approved
the said area did not come within the limits of
the GBA inasmuch as what would be required to
be seen is the date on which the collection of
toll would be made. Though this may be a
peculiar situation where the GBA has been
established even before the toll plaza was made
operational, there would always be a situation
which would arise where a toll plaza having
been established would subsequently come
within the municipal or local town area limits.
16.42. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Fee
Rules, 2008, the expression "establishment" of
a toll plaza must necessarily be understood as
establishment for the purpose of levy and
- 54 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
collection of fee, so as to give full meaning and
effect to the object and purport of the
provision. The underlying intent is that no
citizen residing within the local area of a toll
plaza should be compelled to pay toll for his or
her daily commute. Any interpretation to the
contrary would result in an unjust and
disproportionate burden on residents who, by
reason of geography, are constrained to use the
National Highway as the sole means of access
to their everyday necessities.
16.43. Roads and highways are public infrastructure
created for the benefit of citizens, and their
operation must serve that end. To require a
resident to make daily, monthly or annual
payments merely to access hospitals, banks,
police stations, veterinary hospitals, agricultural
centres, fertiliser outlets, schools, colleges,
public transport facilities, government offices,
- 55 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
markets, fuel stations and other essential
services is to transform a facilitative public
utility into a source of recurring hardship. Such
an imposition places an undue financial burden
on citizens who may be ill-equipped to bear it
and amounts to a restriction on ordinary day to
day life itself.
16.44. This Court cannot be oblivious to the lived
realities of the residents inhabiting the villages
and habitations surrounding the toll plaza. For
them, the National Highway is not a corridor of
choice or convenience, but the sole arterial
road connecting them to essential services and
emergency facilities. Its use is neither
occasional nor discretionary; it is compelled by
circumstance. To require such residents to
repeatedly pay toll merely to conduct the
ordinary affairs of life imposes a daily financial
and psychological burden wholly
- 56 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
disproportionate to the benefit purportedly
conferred.
16.45. The contention that this burden may be
mitigated through discounted or monthly
passes overlooks the fundamental inequity
inherent in such an approach. A citizen residing
in the vicinity of a toll plaza ought not to be
placed in a position where access to essential
services is conditioned upon the capacity to
make recurring payments, however modest
such payments may appear in abstraction.
Constitutional freedoms cannot be calibrated on
assumptions of affordability, nor can dignity of
movement be reduced to a subscription-based
entitlement.
16.46. The Court must also take judicial notice of the
ground realities emerging from the material on
record. It is not uncommon to find residents
resorting to the use of tractors for transport of
- 57 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
people, a practice that appears to have
evolved, in part, because such vehicles are
exempt from payment of toll. A tractor is
plainly not designed for the carriage of persons,
and the use of such vehicles for human
transport, often at considerable risk to life and
limb, cannot be regarded as an acceptable or
lawful alternative. The very adoption of such
unsafe practices underscores the absence of
reasonable and lawful access options.
16.47. These circumstances ought to have prompted
the respondents to address the issue holistically
by providing a service road or an alternate
road, or at the very least, by extending free
local passes to verified residents. Instead, the
insistence that residents must adapt their lives
to the toll regime reveals the disproportionate
burden cast upon them by the impugned
arrangement. Infrastructure must serve
- 58 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
citizens; citizens are not required to reorganise
their lives around infrastructure.
16.48. Ultimately, this Court is not merely engaged in
a textual construction of subordinate
legislation, but in giving effect to its
constitutional purpose. Where the only available
road to access basic necessities is rendered
conditional upon payment, the distinction
between a user fee and a compulsory exaction
becomes blurred. Interpreting Rules 8 and 9 in
a manner that compels local residents to pay
for every act of living would defeat the object of
the Rules and fall foul of the principles of
fairness, proportionality and human dignity that
animate Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the
Constitution. Residency can always be verified
through appropriate documentation; what
cannot be sustained in law is the imposition of a
recurring financial barrier on residents merely
- 59 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
to access the necessities of life, particularly
when the concessions under sub-rules (3A) and
(3B) of Rule 9 are inapplicable or inadequate in
the present case.
16.49. In that view of the matter, I answer point
No.1 by holding that the location of the
Toll Plaza at Somanahalli violates Sub-rule
(1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee
(Determination of Rates and Collection)
Rules, 2008.
16.50. I answer point No.2 by holding that the
levy of toll without providing a service
route or an alternate route is arbitrary and
unreasonable, violating Article 14,
19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the
Constitution.
17. Answer to point No.3; Whether toll collection
without installation of a Closed User Fee
Collection System violates Sub-rule (3) of Rule
8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination
of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?
- 60 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
17.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that a Closed User Fee Collection
System ought to have been implemented
admits of considerable force. Such a system
would have ensured that local residents are
charged only for the actual distance travelled
and the actual use made of the National
Highway. The stand of the National Highways
Authority of India, however, is that the
provision of paid passes under Rule 9 of the Fee
Rules, 2008 constitutes a sufficient and lawful
alternative, both to the establishment of a
Closed User Fee Collection System and to the
provision of a service road or alternate road.
17.2. This contention betrays a deeply troubling
approach. Instead of addressing the structural
hardship imposed upon local residents, the
respondent authority seeks to normalise it by
offering payment-based "alternatives", thereby
- 61 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
shifting the entire burden of its own
infrastructural omissions onto citizens who have
no meaningful choice in the matter. The
suggestion that residents may purchase passes
to mitigate hardship reduces the exercise of
fundamental freedoms to a transactional
privilege, available only upon the payment of
recurring charges.
17.3. The Court finds it disquieting that a statutory
authority entrusted with the development and
management of national highways would
contend that the absence of a service road, the
absence of an alternate road, and the absence
of a Closed User Fee Collection System can all
be cured by compelling residents to pay, month
after month, merely to go about the ordinary
business of living. Such an approach is
antithetical to the role of the State as a
facilitator of access and mobility and instead
- 62 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
treats citizens as captive users of infrastructure
over which they exercise no real choice.
17.4. A Closed User Fee Collection System is not a
gratuitous concession; it is a mechanism
expressly contemplated by the statutory
framework to ensure fairness and
proportionality in toll collection. Where
residents are compelled by geography to use a
particular stretch of highway repeatedly and for
short distances, the failure to implement such a
system, coupled with the insistence on toll
collection through blunt and uniform methods,
results in manifestly arbitrary outcomes. The
respondents cannot be permitted to evade this
obligation by pointing to paid passes as a
substitute, particularly when such passes
themselves impose a financial burden on
economically vulnerable populations.
- 63 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
17.5. In the present case, the respondents have
chosen the most onerous course for the citizen:
they have neither provided a service road nor
an alternate road; they have declined to
implement a Closed User Fee Collection
System; and yet they insist upon toll collection,
effectively compelling residents to pay for every
act of daily existence. This Court is unable to
countenance such an abdication of
responsibility. In the absence of all three
safeguards, the insistence on toll collection
from local residents is plainly unjust, oppressive
and contrary to the scheme of the Fee Rules,
2008.
17.6. I answer to point No.3 by holding that toll
collection without installation of a Closed
User Fee Collection System violates Sub-
rule (3) of Rule 8 of the National Highways
- 64 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619
WP No. 7129 of 2024
HC-KAR
Fee (Determination of Rates and
Collection) Rules, 2008?
18. Answer to point No.4: What order?
18.1. In view of my answers to point No.1 to 3, I
pass the following;
ORDER
i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.
ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5, to issue free local resident passes, without levy of any toll or user fee, to the petitioners and to all other similarly placed local residents who apply for such passes, subject to verification of their residency, enabling their unrestricted ingress and egress through the Somanahalli Toll Plaza for access to their residences, agricultural lands, workplaces and essential services.
iii. The exercise of verification of residency and issuance of such free passes shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
iv. In the event of failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the direction contained in clause (iii) above within the stipulated time, the respondents shall forthwith cease collection of toll at the Somanahalli Toll
- 65 -
NC: 2026:KHC:4619 WP No. 7129 of 2024 HC-KAR Plaza and shall remove and relocate the said toll plaza to a location in conformity with Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.
v. It is clarified that no toll shall be levied or collected from the petitioners or other eligible local residents pending compliance with this order.
SD/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 40