The Jammu
and Kashmir High Court has directed an 80% reduction in toll fees at Lakhanpur
and Bann Toll Plazas on National Highway-44 until the completion of
construction, citing the deteriorated condition of the highway.
The court
emphasized that tolls are meant to provide users with well-maintained
infrastructure, and charging commuters for poorly maintained roads is unfair
and unreasonable. It noted that drivers are frustrated as they are not
receiving the quality infrastructure they are paying for.
A bench
comprising Chief Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that
instead of suspending toll collection until the Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway
is fully operational, authorities had increased toll fees at certain plazas.
The court criticized this move, highlighting that toll plazas should not
function solely as revenue-generating mechanisms.
The court
further noted that the National Highway Fee Rules mandate a minimum distance of
60 km between toll plazas, whereas the distance between Sarore and Bann Toll
Plazas is only 47 km, constituting a violation. It also pointed out that the
Bann Toll Plaza was established before Domel, forcing Vaishno Devi pilgrims to
pay multiple tolls despite using only short sections of the highway.
Additionally,
the court raised concerns about toll operators employing individuals with
criminal records and directed authorities to ensure police verification before
hiring personnel at toll plazas.
Background
A Public
Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed seeking exemption from toll tax at
Lakhanpur, Thandi Khui, and Bann Toll Plazas until the completion of the
Delhi-Amritsar-Katra Expressway. The petitioner argued that 70% of the highway
is under construction with severe diversions and potholes, making toll
collection unjustified under the National Highways Fee Rules.
In
response, the court ordered an immediate 80% toll reduction at the two plazas
and the removal of toll plazas violating the 60 km rule. It also mandated
strict background checks for toll plaza employees.
Case
Title:
Sugandha Sawhney vs. Union of India, 2025
Appearance: Petitioner-in-person | Karan Sharma, Advocate for
Respondents
