The present PIL challenged Circulars No. NHAI/OM/36 (CII) dated 12-2-2021 and 14-2-2021 issued by the respondent 1 - NHAI, making it mandatory for toll commuters without FASTag to compulsorily pay double toll fees instead of actual toll fees, by way of penalty, from 15-2-21.
The petition described the illegal, arbitrary, and violative due process of law in converting cash lanes into FASTag exclusive. Therefore, this petition sought wards from quashing these circulars and taking measures whereby at least one lane would be kept as a hybrid to allow payment of toll fees by cash or any such other mode to allow commuters.
The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J. and Bharati Dangre held that the diversion of the vehicle to the left lane, where it was permitted to pay the toll fees in cash, but double the fee, which would have otherwise been levied on the vehicle, if it was fitted with FASTag, was strictly in accordance with the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 ('the 2008 Rules'). The Court dismissed the PIL and stated that to encourage the use of FASTag, instead of cash, it was imperative for the vehicles to pay double the fee, and it was a rational decision taken by Respondent 1. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the implementation of the FASTag has not been successful as there is a poor technology provision, resulting in great hardships for passersby.
There might be some people who learned technology just a few months back and that restricting the movements of their vehicles and diverting them to a lane with an instruction to collect double toll for non-FASTag users is private and arbitrary.
Besides, it was further added that such a person other than being illiterate, might not have a bank account and therefore being imposed with a fine /penalty for non-usage of FASTag would deleteriously affect him and would also be discriminatory to his right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
Significantly, the Court observed that for good quality roads, the toll was thus being levied, which formed a compensatory charge, and all vehicles that used this road must pay this charge.
In this context, the Court also briefly referred to the Notification issued on 21-11-2014, when integrating the FASTag in the system, as the Central Government made Rules to amend the 2008 Rules. The Court observed that FASTag here is defined as an onboard unit (transponder) or any such device fitted on the front windscreen of the vehicle. It was also observed by the court that the Notification introduced the concept of 'the FASTag lane of fee plaza' as an exclusive lane in that fee plaza for the movement of vehicles fitted with 'FASTag' or any such device.
Even if the dispensation of FASTag had been imposed in areas where it was not accepted at the time, respondents had wisely decided to charge vehicles without them double the toll amount, with a discount for FASTag users. Making vehicles pay more to encourage their use was wise.
The Court also noted that Respondent 1 had acted judiciously in imposing the double fee scheme to encourage the users to use FASTag instead of cash.
Also Read: