New Delhi: Amid the public outcry over the traffic congestion on the Thrissur-Ernakulam stretch of National Highway 544, the Supreme Court criticised the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) while considering its plea challenging the Kerala High Court order, suspending toll collection at Paliyekkara in Thrissur district. The division bench comprising Chief Justice BR Gavai, Justices Vinod Chandran and NV Anjaria reserved orders on the petition filed by the NHAI.

It was on August 6 that the HC ordered a two-week halt on toll collection at Paliyekkara over the lapses of the NHAI in resolving the persistent traffic congestion and poor condition of the Mannuthy-Edappally stretch of the NH 544.

The bench also heard the petition filed by the Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd, the concessionaire who is collecting the toll, challenging the HC's verdict.

The bench highlighted the huge traffic block, which lasted for over 12 hours on this stretch during the last weekend. Even on the previous hearing date (August 14), the bench had expressed reluctance to entertain the petition, asking how the toll can be collected from the commuters when the road is not kept in a motorable condition.

When Justice Chandran questioned Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta, who was representing the NHAI, about the 12-hour-long traffic block, he defended NHAI by claiming it was an act of God.

"It was an act of God, a lorry fell down," SG said.

"The lorry did not fall down on its own. It fell into a pothole and got turned over,"Justice Chandran said.

SG informed the apex court that the NHAI has constructed the service roads as alternative ways at the places where the construction of underpasses is going on; however, because of the monsoons, the construction was impacted.

Amid this, CJI BR Gavai asked what the toll price was for the 65 km stretch. On being informed that it was ₹150, CJI asked, "Why should a person pay ₹150 if it takes 12 hours for him to get from one end of the road to the other end?". "A road which is expected to take one hour, it takes 11 more hours, and they have to pay toll as well!" CJI exclaimed. SG then pointed out that there is a judgment which says that in such a case, instead of no toll, there has to be a proportionate reduction.

"For the 12-hour block, the National Highway should pay something to the commuters," Justice Chandran commented in a lighter vein. "If there is no traffic, it will take a maximum of one hour to cover this stretch. If there is traffic, it will take maximum 3 hours. For 12 hours, there is no question of proportionate reduction," Justice Chandran stated. SG Tushar Mehta submitted that the NHAI's concern was with respect to the High Court allowing the concessionaire (Guruvayoor Infrastructure Ltd) to recover from the NHAI the losses incurred due to the toll suspension. The bench said that it can clarify that the dispute between the NHAI and the concessionaire will be subject to arbitration.

Senior Advocate Shyam Divan, for Guruvayoor Infrastructure, submitted that the contracts for the work of the underpasses at the intersections are given to third parties, and they are liable for the traffic block. He claimed that the concessionaire was maintaining the road stretch well, which was under its control, and contended that the High Court had unnecessarily pinned the blame on them.

Meanwhile, senior Advocate Jayant Muthraj, the counsel for the petitioners who approached the court, argued that it is the duty of the NHAI to ensure that the road is in a motorable condition. 

(With Live Law inputs)