Toll plaza location under National Highways Fee Rules upheld, while unauthorised barricades were disallowed and local concessions enforced.

Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee Rules permits a toll plaza within municipal limits where the highway section itself is substantially within those limits or near them and is primarily for local use; in that setting, the second proviso operates on objective conditions and does not require separate recorded reasons under the first proviso. The toll plaza at km 194 was therefore treated as valid and not arbitrary. Rule 17 allows barricades only at the toll plaza or within ten kilometres with prior written permission and recorded reasons, so unauthorised barricades or service-road closures were not permissible. Eligible local residents were also entitled to the concessions under Rule 9, and the authorities were required to implement those benefits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the location of the toll plaza at km 194 was illegal or arbitrary under Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, and whether the second proviso to Rule 8 required reasons in writing; (ii) Whether barricades or closure of service roads near the toll plaza could be maintained consistently with Rule 17 of the Rules; (iii) Whether the Appellants and the Concessionaire were bound to extend concessions to local residents under Rule 9 of the Rules.

Issue (i): Whether the location of the toll plaza at km 194 was illegal or arbitrary under Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, and whether the second proviso to Rule 8 required reasons in writing?

Analysis: Rule 8(1) requires a fee plaza beyond 10 kilometres from municipal or town limits, but the first proviso permits location within 10 kilometres only for reasons recorded in writing and not within 5 kilometres. The second proviso, however, deals with a distinct situation where the highway section itself is constructed within municipal or town limits, or within 5 kilometres thereof, primarily for the use of the residents of such area. That proviso contains objective conditions and is not controlled by the requirement of recorded reasons in the first proviso. The competent authority for invoking the second proviso is the Executing Authority. On the materials, the project road substantially ran through the municipal area, the widening benefitted the local population, and the toll plaza location was supported by the project report and agreement. The decision was therefore not arbitrary or illegal.

Conclusion: The location of the toll plaza at km 194 was valid and the challenge to it failed.

Issue (ii): Whether barricades or closure of service roads near the toll plaza could be maintained consistently with Rule 17 of the Rules?

Analysis: Rule 17 permits additional barriers only at the toll plaza or, with prior written permission and for reasons recorded, within ten kilometres from the fee plaza to check evasion of fee. Any barrier or closure beyond the statutory permission is impermissible.

Conclusion: Only barricades permitted by Rule 17 could be maintained, and unauthorised barricades were directed to be removed.

Issue (iii): Whether the Appellants and the Concessionaire were bound to extend concessions to local residents under Rule 9 of the Rules?

Analysis: The Court accepted that the local residents were entitled to the statutory discounts and concessions provided by the Rules, and required the authorities to ensure those benefits were extended in practice.

Conclusion: The authorities were directed to extend the concessions under Rule 9 to eligible local residents.

Final Conclusion: The statutory challenge to the toll plaza location was rejected, the direction to shift the plaza was set aside, and the project was upheld subject to compliance with the Rules governing barriers and concessions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the statutory conditions of the second proviso to Rule 8 are met, the toll plaza may be located within municipal limits without a separate requirement of reasons in writing, and judicial review will not interfere unless the decision is arbitrary or contrary to the objective criteria in the Rules.

---