Bombay High Court: The present PIL raised a challenge to the Circulars dated 12-2-2021 and 14-2-2021 issued by Respondent 2-NHAI, whereby commuters without FASTag were mandatorily required to pay double toll fees instead of the actual toll fees, by way of penalty from 15-2-2021. The petition stated that conversion of cash lanes into FASTag-exclusive lanes was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of due process of law and thus, sought quashing of these circulars and a directive to keep at least one lane as a hybrid lane to allow cash payments or any other modes to the commuters to pay the toll fees.
The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and Bharati Dangre*, J., held that the diversion of the vehicle to the left lane, where it was permitted to pay the toll fee in cash, but double of 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 use of FASTag, in place of cash, it was imperative for the vehicles to pay double fee, and it was a rationale decision taken by Respondent 1.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the implementation of the FASTag had failed due to lack of proper technological infrastructure, resulting into undue hardship to the commuters. There might be a class of people, who were not yet introduced to technology and by restricting the movement of the vehicles used by them and being diverted to a lane and the direction to collect double toll fee for non FASTag users was arbitrary and illegal. Further, it was stated that the said class of people apart from being illiterate, might not have a bank account and, therefore, being imposed with a fine/penalty for non-usage of FASTag would adversely impact them, and would also violate their right under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.
The Court stated that for use of good quality of roads, toll was being imposed, which was a compensatory fee, and it was imperative for every vehicle, which used the said road, to pay the said fee. The Court referred to the Notification dated 21-11-2014, when the Central Government made Rules to amend the 2008 Rules, by introducing FASTag in the system, and stated that FASTag was defined as an onboard unit (transponder) or any such device fitted on the front wind screen of the vehicle. The Court stated that the Notification also introduced the concept of ‘FASTag lane of fee plaza’ as an exclusive lane in the fee plaza for the movement of vehicles fitted with ‘FASTag’ or any such device.
The Court referred to various Notifications issued by the Ministry of Road Transport & Highways from time to time, and opined that it was evident that the usage of FASTag was sought to be encouraged as it led to reduction in waiting time, fuel consumption and pollution levels at fee plazas and from 15-2-2021, fee collection system at all fee plazas of National Highways was directed to be processed through FASTag alone.
The Court opined that the introduction of a FASTag was a policy decision aimed for providing efficient and seamless road travel. The system of FASTag was introduced in 2014 and gradually it was implemented throughout the country and FASTags were made mandatory only after giving sufficient time to public to adopt the said change. By amending the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, it was made mandatory for category M and N motor vehicles sold on and after 1-12-2017, to be fitted with FASTag. The Court noted that though initially it was directed by Respondent 1 that all lanes in fee plaza be declared as ‘FASTag lane of fee plaza’ for promoting payment through digital mode and ensure seamless passage through fee plaza, however, one lane was to remain a hybrid lane, which permitted vehicles to pass without FASTag or with a defective FASTag.
The Court opined that the petitioner’s contention that the amount collected from the vehicle, which was not fitted with FASTag, was by way of penalty, was misconceived, because as per the second proviso appended to the Rules 2008, a vehicle not fitted with FASTag or without valid and functional FASTag, entering ‘FASTag lane’ of the fee plazas shall pay a ‘fee’ equivalent to two times of the fee applicable to that category of the vehicle. The Court stated that the contention the two times amount was by way of penalty was devoid of any merit. Thus, the Court held that the the diversion of the vehicle to the left lane, where it was permitted to pay the toll fee in cash, but double of the fee, which would have otherwise levied on the vehicle, if it was fitted with FASTag, was strictly in accordance with the 2008 Rules.
The Court stated that it was difficult to fathom that the public in India was not well equipped to handle the FASTag and opined that there was rarely any person who did not use a mobile phone and when the mobiles were used, the users were also acquainted with the procedure of its recharge and it was not expected that the person should be thoroughly techno-savvy for use of FASTag as it was a simple procedure, which could also be worked offline.
The Court stated that to encourage use of FASTag, in place of cash, it was imperative for the vehicles to pay double fee, and it was a rationale decision taken by Respondent 1. The Court dismissed the PIL as it found no justiciability to interfere in the policy decision taken by Respondent 1 and implemented by Respondent 2.
[Arjun Raju Khanapure v. Union of India, Public Interest Litigation No. 75 of 2021, decided on 13-3-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Bharati Dangre
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Uday Warunjikar with Vijaykumar B. Dighe and Amol Ohal for the Petitioner.
For the Respondents: R.V. Govilkar, Senior Advocate with D.P. Singh and Shaba Khan for the Respondent 1-UOI; Birendra Saraf, Advocate General with Vaibhav Charalwar, Prashant Mishra, Bharat Jadhav, Purva Birla and Darshil Shah for Respondent 2; Sahil Mate i/b Pradumna Sharma for the Respondent 3.
