Case Note & Summary
The Karnataka High Court partly allowed a writ petition filed by residents of Somanahalli, Nelaguli and Kaggalipura villages challenging the location of the Somanahalli Toll Plaza on National Highway No. 209. The petitioners argued that the absence of a service road or alternate route compelled them to pay toll repeatedly for short-distance travel to access essential services such as hospitals, schools, markets, banks, government offices and their agricultural lands.
The Court held that Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 is intended to protect local residents from recurring toll payments for routine travel. It observed that the toll plaza had come within the Greater Bengaluru Authority limits before becoming operational, thereby violating Rule 8(1). The Court further held that the availability of monthly or concessional toll passes under Rule 9 does not cure non-compliance with Rule 8 and cannot replace the obligation to provide a service road, alternate route or other fair access mechanism. Compelling residents to repeatedly pay toll in the absence of any practical alternative was found to be arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, the Court directed the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to issue free local resident passes to eligible residents within thirty days. It further ordered that if the authorities failed to comply within the stipulated period, toll collection at the Somanahalli Toll Plaza must cease and the toll plaza should be relocated to a location conforming to Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008.
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka partly allowed a writ petition filed by residents of Somanahalli, Nelaguli and Kaggalipura villages challenging the location of the toll plaza established at Km 448+900 on National Highway No. 209 and the levy of toll without providing a service road, alternate route or Closed User Fee Collection System -- The petitioners contended that local residents were compelled to repeatedly pay toll for accessing their residences, agricultural lands and essential services, thereby violating Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution -- The Court held that Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 is intended to protect local residents from recurring toll payments for short-distance daily travel and that the toll plaza, having come within the Greater Bengaluru Authority limits before commencement of toll collection, violated Rule 8(1) -- The Court further held that monthly passes or concessional passes under Rule 9 cannot substitute the statutory requirement of providing fair access through a service road, alternate route or appropriate local exemption and that compelling residents to pay toll for routine movement is arbitrary and disproportionate -- Accordingly, the Court directed the National Highways Authority of India to issue free local resident passes to eligible residents within thirty days, failing which toll collection at the Somanahalli Toll Plaza shall cease and the toll plaza shall be relocated in conformity with Rule 8 of the 2008 Rules -- Writ Petition Partly Allowed.
Issue of Consideration
The Issue of Consideration mentioned in the Judgment is whether the petitioners are entitled to reliefs seeking shifting of toll plaza or construction of service road under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Final Decision
The High Court partly allowed the writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) to issue free local resident passes, without levy of toll, to the petitioners and all similarly situated eligible residents after verification of residency within 30 days. The Court further directed that, in case of non-compliance within the stipulated period, NHAI shall cease toll collection and relocate the Somanahalli Toll Plaza to a location conforming to Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008. The Court also clarified that no toll shall be collected from eligible local residents pending compliance with the directions.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- National Highways Act
- 1956
- National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules
- 2008
- Right to Information Act
- 2005
- Principles of administrative law
- Judicial review of administrative decisions
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 12
WP No. 7129 of 2024 (GM-RES)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Suraj Govindaraj
Sri. B.S. Shrinivas for Petitioners, Sri. Chandra Chud for Respondent 1, Smt. Sruti Chaganti for Respondents 2 to 5, Smt. Saritha Kulkarni for Respondent 6
Mr. Manjesh Kumar, Mr. M. Ramaiah, Mr. T. Manjunatha, Mr. Cheluvaraju M, Mr. Vijaya Kumara, Mr. Harish K S, Mr. Venkatesh R, Mr. Nadeem Pasha
Union of India Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, The National Highways Authority of India, The Project Director National Highways Authority of India, National Highway Authority of India Project Implementation Unit-Ramanagar, Assistant Executive Engineer National Highway Authority of India, State of Karnataka
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the location of the Somanahalli Toll Plaza and the levy of toll without providing a service road, alternate route or Closed User Fee Collection System, alleging violation of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 and Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to: Shift the toll plaza constructed at Km 448+900 (Somanahalli Village); Alternatively construct a service road or alternate road for local residents; Implement a Closed User Fee Collection System under Rule 8(3) of the National Highways Fee Rules, 2008.
Filing Reason
The petitioners contended that the toll plaza compelled local residents to repeatedly pay toll for short-distance travel to access their homes, agricultural lands, hospitals, schools, banks, markets and other essential services due to the absence of any service road or alternate route
Previous Decisions
The petitioners submitted representations dated 30.10.2023 and 24.11.2023, while Kaggalipura, Taralu and Somanahalli Gram Panchayats also submitted representations on 23.11.2023 requesting relocation of the toll plaza or construction of service roads. The representations were not acted upon, and construction of the toll plaza continued.
Issues
Whether the location of the Somanahalli Toll Plaza violated Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?
Whether levy of toll without providing a service road or alternate route was arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution?
Whether toll collection without implementing a Closed User Fee Collection System violated Rule 8(3) of the Fee Rules, 2008?
Whether the petitioners were entitled to the reliefs sought?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argue that the toll plaza imposed recurring toll charges on local residents for routine travel.
No service road or alternate route was provided.
The toll plaza violated Rule 8 of the Fee Rules.
The respondents failed to consider representations submitted by residents and Gram Panchayats.
Toll collection infringed Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution.
Respondents (NHAI)
The toll plaza was established in accordance with the concession agreement and the Fee Rules.
Residents could obtain monthly local passes under Rule 9.
A Closed User Fee Collection System was optional and not mandatory.
There was no legal obligation to construct a service road.
Ratio Decidendi
Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 is intended to protect local residents from recurring toll payments for short-distance daily travel. Monthly or concessional passes under Rule 9 cannot substitute compliance with Rule 8 or justify compelling residents to pay toll in the absence of a service road or alternate route. Toll collection from local residents without providing reasonable alternative access is arbitrary, disproportionate and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. Where local residents are compelled to use the toll road for access to essential services, authorities must provide free local resident passes or otherwise ensure compliance with the statutory scheme.
Judgment Excerpts
"The petitioners are before the Court seeking the following reliefs..."
"The petitioners submitted representations on 30.10.2023 and 24.11.2023..."
"The Kaggalipura, Taralu and Somanahalli Gram Panchayats had also requested the respondent not to establish the toll plaza..."
"The writ petition is partly allowed."
"A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents to issue free local resident passes..."
"In default of compliance, the respondents shall cease toll collection and relocate the toll plaza."
Procedural History
Representations were submitted by the petitioners on 30.10.2023 and 24.11.2023, and by the concerned Gram Panchayats on 23.11.2023. As the authorities proceeded with construction without granting relief, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. The matter was reserved for judgment on 09.12.2025 and the judgment was pronounced on 28.01.2026, whereby the writ petition was partly allowed with directions to issue free local resident passes and, in case of non-compliance, to stop toll collection and relocate the toll plaza.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- National Highways Act, 1956:
- National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008: Rule 3 of Amendment Rules
- Right to Information Act, 2005:
