Allow free access through Somanahalli toll plaza for residents’ vehicles: Karnataka HC directs NHAI

Declaring that operationalising a plaza within 10 km from municipal limits is contrary to law, the High Court of Karnataka has directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to issue free resident passes, without levy of any toll or user fee, to residents, subject to verification of their residency, enabling them unrestricted use of Somanahlli toll plaza on Bengaluru-Kanakapura stretch of National Highway (NH)-209.

30-day deadline

The court issued a deadline of 30 days for the NHAI to complete the exercise of verification of residency and issuance of free passes to the residents for access to their residences, agricultural lands, workplaces and essential services

The NHAI should forthwith cease collection of toll at the Somanahalli toll plaza and remove and relocate it to a location in conformity with Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, that is beyond 10 km from city limits, if it cannot complete within 30 days the process of issuance of passes for locals, who apply for it, and verification of their residency.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the directions while partly allowing petitions filed by Manjesh Kumar and other residents of Somanahalli, Nelaguli, and Kaggalipura village panchayats, situated on the Bengaluru–Kanakapura NH.

Now in GBA limits

Rejecting NHAI’s contention that locals can take monthly passes at concessional rate as location of Somanahalli toll plaza was outside the city limit when it was proposed and constructed, but it came within the city limit after creation of Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA), the Court said 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.

“The authorities have chosen the most onerous course for the citizens: they have neither provided a service road nor an alternate road; they have declined to implement a Closed User Fee Collection (CUFC) 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,” the court observed.

Stating that toll collection without installation of the CUFC system violates Rule 8(3), the court said that “the CUFC system is not a gratuitous concession.” The court further observed, “…it is a mechanism expressly contemplated by the statutory framework to ensure fairness and proportionality in toll collection in which 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”.

Car not a luxury

Though no toll is levied on two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors, and animal-drawn vehicles, the court said the use of cars by locals can no more be treated as a luxury by pointing out that people use cars to access essential services on a daily basis.

Imposing toll, even on a concession rate for people residing in the villages and habitations around the toll plaza, on cars too would cause a financial burden on residents, the court said.