- Case
- ARJUN RAJU KHANAPURE v. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND ANR (Bombay High Court, 13-03-2025)
- Law
- National Highways Authority of India Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed challenging circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) mandating that commuters without FASTag pay double the toll fees as a penalty. The petitioner contended that converting cash lanes to FASTag-exclusive lanes is illegal, arbitrary, and violates due process, seeking the quashing of the circulars and a directive to maintain at least one hybrid lane for cash payments.
Procedural Posture: The case came before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in its Civil Appellate Jurisdiction as a Public Interest Litigation. The pleadings were complete, and the court issued a Rule, making it returnable forthwith. The NHAI raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the PIL was essentially a private grievance disguised as public interest.
Issue: (1) Is the policy decision to implement FASTag and charge double toll fees to non-FASTag users arbitrary, unreasonable, or violative of fundamental rights? (2) Can the court interfere with a policy decision aimed at promoting digital payment and efficient road travel?
Holding: The High Court dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, finding no justifiable reason to interfere with the policy decision taken by the Union of India and implemented by the NHAI.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the FASTag policy aims to provide efficient and seamless road travel, reduce waiting time, fuel consumption, and pollution. The system was introduced in 2014 and implemented gradually after giving the public sufficient time to adopt it. The Court noted that while initially all lanes were to be FASTag lanes, one hybrid lane was to remain. The provision for double fees for non-FASTag users entering FASTag lanes is not a penalty but a fee for using that lane without FASTag. The Court emphasized that policy decisions can only be subjected to judicial review if they are arbitrary or violate fundamental rights, and courts should be slow to interfere with policy decisions unless they are patently arbitrary or not in the larger public interest. The court found no restriction on the movement of vehicles, as non-FASTag vehicles are diverted to a left lane where they can pay double the fee. The court also dismissed the petitioner's argument that the public is not well-equipped to handle FASTag, finding it baseless given the widespread use of mobile phones and digital payment methods.
