(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; directing the respondents to shift the toll plaza constructed at km 448+900 (Somanahalli Village), National Highway no. 2090 and etc.)

1. The petitioners are before the Court seeking for the following reliefs:

                  a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction; directing the Respondents to shift the toll plaza constructed at Km 448+900 (Somanahalli Village), National Highway No.2090.

                  b. In the alternative direct the Respondents to construct service road/ alternative road for easy movement of the Petitioners between Somnahalli village, Nelagulli village Kaggalipura village in Kanakapura Taluk, Ramanagara District;

                  c. Direct the respondents to install closed user fee collection system as per Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Amendment Rules, 2022;

                  d. Grant such other relief/s that this Hon'ble Court deems fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioners No.1 to 5 claim to be local residents of Somanahalli and Nelaguli Village who keep travelling to Kaggalipura for their daily needs for visiting Government Hospital, Banks, Police Station, Veterinary Hospital, Agriculture Farmer Centre, Fertilizer Shops, Schools, Colleges, KSRTC Express Bus Stop, Range Forest Office, Post Office, BESCOM office, Markets, Private Nursing Home, Petrol Bunks, Etc., Petitioners No.1 to 8 claim to be residents Kaggalipura who possess lands in Somanahalli and Nelaguli Village requiring them to travel to look after their lands and other works.

3. Respondent No.1-Union of India, Minister of Road Transport and Highways had entrusted the respondent No.2-National Highway Authority of India ('NHAI') the Development, Maintenance and Management of National Highway No.209 in the State of Karnataka by two/four laning the existing road on a design, build, operate and transfer basis which would be partly financed by the concessionaire, who shall recover its investment and cost through payments to be made to the respondent No.2.

4. Respondent No.2-NHAI, accordingly, invited proposals by its request for proposal (RFP) dated 13.04.2016 for short-listing of bidders for construction, operation and maintenance of the above project on a hybrid annuity basis, on the basis of which certain bidders were short-listed. Thereafter, Respondent No.1 entered into an agreement with one of the concessionaires. The said concessionaire could not complete the work, and respondent No.1 called for new tenders and entered into a new agreement with a new concessionaire.

5. The petitioners, as indicated above, are residents of Somanahalli, Nelaguli, and Kaggalipura Village Panchayats, situated on the Bengaluru-Kanakapura Highway and all the petitioners having agricultural land situated within the said panchayats are required to travel to and fro each of the panchayats.

6. The respondent No.1, intending to start the operation of the toll plaza constructed at Somanahalli Village, which is within 3 Km from two other village panchayat areas, had sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI') about the toll plaza and the distance between each of the toll plazas. As regards which a reply had been issued on 07.10.2023 stating that, as per the concession agreement, three numbers of toll plazas are proposed on NH-209 from BRT Tiger Reserve to Bengaluru South, the first one at (Km 298+940) as Harapanahalli Village, second at (Km 359+800) at Sathyagala Village and at (Km 448+900) Somanahalli Village.

7. In that view of the matter, the petitioners submitted representations on 30.10.2023, 24.11.2023 to respondents No.4 and 5 viz., the National Highway Authority of India, Project Implementation Unit and the Assistant Executive Engineer, NHAI respectively, requesting them to shift the toll plaza at Somanahalli Village or to form a service road for the easy travel between the aforesaid Village Panchayats, the said representation was not considered however the construction of a toll plaza was commenced.

8. The Kaggalipura, Taralu and Somanahalli Gram Panchayats had also requested respondent No.4 not to put up the toll plaza, until and unless service roads have been provided to ease the free movement of people residing in their respective panchayat areas. These representations, having been submitted on 23.11.2023 were also not considered; the construction of the toll plaza proceeded with.

9. The petitioners are now before this Court on the ground that a new concessionaire is completing the work of the toll plaza and would start collecting toll from the petitioners who are residents of the said village panchayats and they not having any other alternate road/service road except the National Highway, every time they have to go from one panchayat area to the other or from their house to their agriculture fields or to access any of their basic amenities would have to cross the toll plaza by making payment of the toll fee which has been prescribed, which would cause undue hardship and inconvenience to them.

10. The petitioners residing in the suburbs of Bangalore also required to travel to Bangalore which is 10 to 15 Km would have to pay the toll fee every time they cross the toll plaza. It is in that background, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

11. Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, learned counsel for the petitioners, would submit that;

                  11.1. The requirement of travel for the petitioners and the residence being a regular requirement on a day-to-day basis, they would have to travel to and fro crossing the toll plaza on several occasions during the day and each time, they would be required to make payment of the toll fee which is an undue burden on them, since neither the Union, the State nor the NHAI has provided any alternative travel route which does not involve payment of toll fee.

                  11.2. His submission is that the toll fee has been fixed for the distance between Somanahalli and the next toll plaza at Sathyagala Village, which is nearly 89 Km apart. The toll fee having been fixed for 89 Km the residents would have to make payment of the said toll fee even though they are using the road for only 10 to 15 Km and such fee has to be paid multiple times, each time that the petitioners pass through the toll plaza.

                  11.3. The petitioners have submitted their representations way back in the year 2023. The panchayats have also submitted a representation in the year 2023. The panchayats representing the residents in their respective jurisdiction. None of these Representations have been considered nor any reply received thereto. The respondents have in a high-handed and arbitrary manner proceeded with and completed the construction of the toll plaza, now requiring the petitioner to make payment of the toll fee for 89 Km every time that they use the toll plaza.

                  11.4. His submission is that the location of the toll plaza itself is contrary to Rule 8(1) of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'Fee Rules, 2008'). His submission is that a toll plaza would have to be established beyond a distance of 10 Km from a municipal or local town area limits, though the panchayat would not be classified as a municipal or local town area. The fact remains that the panchayats are situated very close to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Limits and as such their representation ought to have been considered favourably.

                  11.5. He submits now that the Greater Bangalore Authority (for short 'GBA') has been established, the jurisdiction of the GBA extends beyond Somanahalli Village and as such, the toll plaza, which is yet to be made operational, is within the jurisdiction of the GBA. Thus, the same would fall foul of Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the fee Rules 2008, the same coming within the GBA limits. When in fact under Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the fee Rules 2008 a toll plaza can only be established 10 Km from the municipal limits.

                  11.6. His submission is also that the Executing Authority has not considered the representation and has not recorded any reasons in writing as to why the toll plaza has to be located at the place chosen which is now within the limits of GBA and as such the residents being forced to make payment of the toll fee they being poor farmers cannot be expected to make payment of such toll fee on a regular basis.

                  11.7. It is the bounden duty on part of the government to provide free access by way of roads it would have been for them to provide a service road which could have been used by the petitioners free of cost instead no service road having been provided, the petitioners would be forced to use the toll road and make payment of the toll fee at the toll plaza for every use.

                  11.8. By referring to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules 2008, he submits that a Closed User Fee Collection System could be established by the NHAI to cater to such a requirement which is also not being provided. The Closed User Fee Collecting System contemplating that fee can only be collected on the actual distance travelled by a mechanical vehicle on a national highway or expressway. Most cases, the petitioners being required to travel between 5 to 15 Km on the actual distance travelled fee could have been levied which also has not been done.

                  11.9. The situation is such that there being no fuel station on the National Highway, even for refueling their vehicles the petitioners would have to cross the Toll Plaza refuel and get back to their residence as regards which also toll fee has to be paid.

                  11.10. These aspects violate Article 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the free movement and travel of the petitioners are adversely affected by establishing such a toll plaza.

                  11.11. On that basis, the actions on part of the respondent are completely arbitrary, the fee sought to be collected is disproportionate to the use of the road. Even otherwise, the toll road being a special situation to enable persons to make a choice to travel by toll road there being no choice available to the petitioners to use a service road, since no service road has been provided is also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

                  11.12. On that basis, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed and the relief sought for to be granted.

12. Ms.Sruti Chaganti., learned counsel appearing for the NHAI-Respondents No.1 to 4 would submit that;

                  12.1. The petitioners have had a misunderstanding of Rule 8(1) of the Fee Rules, 2008. The distance of 10 Km is only prescribed from a municipal or a town area limit, there is no stipulation regarding the distance of a toll plaza from a village panchayat limit. At the time when the toll plaza was established there being no municipal or town area limit within 10 Km of such toll plaza the establishment of toll plaza is proper and correct.

                  12.2. Her submission is that the BBMP vide its letter dated 15.12.2023 confirmed that the BBMP limit ends at Kanakapura Nice Road junction i.e., that at KM 458.500 ,the toll plaza being constructed at (Km 448+900) is beyond 10 Km and therefore, there is no violation of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008.

                  12.3. Her submission is that the petitioners would not be required to make payment of the toll fee for the entire extent of 89 Km being the distance between the Somanahalli and Sathyagala toll plazas. In that regard, she relies upon Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the Fee Rules, 2008 in terms of which no fee shall be levied for the use of the section of National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel as the case may be by two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors, combined harvester and animal drawn vehicle. Thus, the petitioners if they were to use, any of the above would not be required to make payment of any toll fee for the use of the toll road and the toll plaza.

                  12.4. By referring to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008 she submits that insofar as other vehicles like cars or non-commercial vehicles are concerned for persons who reside within a distance of 20 km from a fee plaza could obtain a monthly pass, the rate of which would be determined in accordance with Rule 5. The monthly fee computed for the year 2024-25 under Rule 5 in that regard is Rs.340/- per calendar month and as such, the petitioners can avail of such pass by paying a sum of Rs.340/- per calendar month irrespective of number of travels made every day during the said calendar month.

                  12.5. Thus, she submits that the contention of the petitioners that they would have to make payment of the toll fee every time they pass the toll plaza, calculated for 89 Km being the distance between Somanahalli and Sathyagala Village is totolly false and a misunderstanding of the applicable law.

                  12.6. She submits that there is no requirement to provide service lanes near or along a toll plaza as per the guidelines and code provisions issued by the Indian Road Congress or in terms of the concession agreement and as such, there is no vested right with the petitioners to claim for construction of a service road along the toll road or near the toll plaza.

                  12.7. Insofar as Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008, she submits that it is only an option available to NHAI introduced by way of amendment in the year 2022, which permits the NHAI to establish a fee plaza on any National Highway or Expressway in the manner as done or to provide a Closed User Fee Collection System. The same does not obligate NHAI to make available a closed user fee toll plaza or tolling system and such a Closed Fee Collection System if provided, no monthly passes would be so provided. The NHAI have made available monthly passes; there would be no requirement for introducing a Closed User Fee Tolling System. On that basis, she submitted that monthly passes are an effective alternative for Closed User Fee Collection Systems.

                  12.8. Her submission is that under the concession agreement, the Section of NH-209 from BRT Tiger Reserve boundary to Bengaluru South is not designed as a closed tolling system but is designed only as an open tolling system consisting of four lane sections. The said concession agreement, having been executed on 08.12.2016, was prior to the amendment in the year 2022 to the Fee Rules, 2008 and as such the amendment made in the year 2022 would not be applicable to the present facts.

                  12.9. The Manual of Specifications and Standards for Four-Laning of Highways through Public-Private Partnership, issued by the Indian Road Congress in 2014, has been followed in its entirety. The said manual does not provide for service road, nor does it provide for Closed User Fee Collection System, nor does it exempt a person using the toll plaza from making payment of the toll fee merely because he is a resident of the neighbouring area.

                  12.10. Insofar as the Constitution of the GBA, she submitted that the Constitution happened on 03.03.2025 much prior to which the concession agreement was entered into in the year 2016, and as such the subsequent Constitution of the GBA under which the aforesaid area comes under now would not make Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008 is applicable requiring a toll plaza already constructed to be removed.

                  12.11. Her submission is that a notification for the establishment of the toll plaza at Somanahalli/Kaggalipura had been issued on 04.12.2024 prior to GBA being constituted on 03.03.2025.

                  12.12. She relies on Sub-rule (3)(a) of Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008 to contend that a person who owns a mechanical vehicle registered for noncommercial purpose having a valid and functional fast tag shall be eligible to obtain a pass on payment of fee of Rs.3000/- which shall be valid for one year or for 200 crossings through any fee plaza on a National Highway, whichever is earlier irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza, as also the proviso thereto to contend that in a Closed User Fee Collection System, entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a free plaza shall be considered as a single crossing. She therefore submits that Sub-rule (3)(a) having been introduced for this very purpose, any person can obtain a pass which would be valid for a year by making payment of sum of Rs.3,000/- and as such, it cannot be contended by the petitioners that they would be required to pay the toll fee for 89 Km every time that they cross the toll plaza.

                  12.13. On that basis, she submits that the petition is required to be dismissed. The respondents to be permitted to make the Toll Plaza operational and start collecting the toll fee in respect at the said Toll Plaza. If the petitioners so wish, they could always obtain a pass as indicated supra.

13. Heard Sri.B.S.Shrinivas, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Ms.Shruti Chaganti, learned counsel appearing for the NHAI and perused papers.

14. The points that would arise for consideration are;

                  1. Whether the location of the Toll Plaza at Somanahalli violates Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

                  2. Whether the levy of toll without providing a service route or an alternate route is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14, 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution?

                  3. Whether toll collection without installation of a Closed User Fee Collection System violates Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

                  4. What order?

15. I answer the above points as under;

16. Answer to point No.1 and 2: Whether the location of the Toll Plaza at Somanahalli violates Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

                  And

                  Whether the levy of toll without providing a service route or an alternate route is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14, 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution?

                  16.1. Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

                  3. Levy of fee. (1) The Central Government may by notification, levy fee for use of any section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel forming part of the national highway, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of these rules:

                  Provided that the Central Government may, by notification, exempt any section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel constructed through a public funded project from levy lev of such fee or part thereof, and subject to such conditions as may be specified in that notification.

                  (2) The collection of fee levied under sub-rule (1) of rule 3, shall commence within forty-five days from the date of completion of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, constructed through a public funded project.

                  (4) No fee shall be levied for the use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, by two wheelers, three wheelers, tractors, combine harvesters) and animal-drawn vehicles:

                  Provided that three wheelers, tractors, combine harvesters) and animal-drawn vehicles shall not be allowed to use the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, where a service road or alternative road is available in lieu of the said national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel:

                  Provided further that where service road or alternative road is available and the owner, driver or the person in charge of two wheeler is making use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, he or she shall charged fifty per cent. of the fee levied on a car.

                  Explanation. For the purposes of this rule,-

                  (a) "alternative road" means such other road, the carriageway of which is more than ten metres wide and the length of which does not exceed the corresponding length of such section of national highway by twenty per cent. thereof;

                  (b) "service road" means a road running parallel to a section of the national highway which provides access to the land adjoining such section of the national highway.

                  (5) The fee notified by the Central Government under these rules shall be rounded off and levied in multiple of the nearest Rupees five.

                  16.2. A plain reading of Rule 3 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, indicates that the Central Government is empowered, by notification, to levy a fee for the use of any section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel forming part of a National Highway, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the said Rules.

                  16.3. The proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 confers a discretion upon the Central Government to exempt any section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel constructed through a public-funded project from the levy of such fee, either wholly or in part, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification.

                  16.4. In the present case, it is an admitted position that the project is not a public-funded project but is executed through a private concessionaire. Consequently, the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 has no application. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 prescribes the time for commencement of fee collection, while sub-rule (3) governs private investment projects, such as the present one, where a concessionaire is selected through a bidding process, and mandates that the fee shall be levied in accordance with the concession agreement. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 further provides that no fee shall be levied for the use of a section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel by two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles.

                  16.5. The first proviso to sub-rule (4) stipulates that where a service road or an alternate road is available in lieu of the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, three-wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles shall not be permitted to use the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be.

                  16.6. Thus, where no service road or alternate road is provided, the use of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel by two-wheelers, three-wheelers, tractors and animal drawn vehicles cannot be subjected to any levy of toll. Conversely, where a service road or an alternate road is made available, three-wheelers, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles are barred from using the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel.

                  16.7. The second proviso to sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 further clarifies that even where a service road or alternate road is available, if a two-wheeler nevertheless uses a section of the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, such user is liable to pay fifty per cent of the toll fee leviable on a car.

                  16.8. Accordingly, a two-wheeler user is afforded a choice: free use of the service road or alternate road, or paid use of the National Highway at fifty per cent of the fee applicable to a car.

                  16.9. Explanation (1) to Rule 3 defines the expressions 'alternate road' and 'service road'. However, in the present case, it is an admitted position that neither a service road nor an alternate road has been provided. Consequently, the definitional content of the Explanation does not arise for consideration, and the legal consequences flowing from the absence of such roads must follow.

                  16.10. Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008, provides for the location of a toll plaza. Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008, is reproduced hereunder for easy reference.

                  8. Location of toll plaza.-(1) The executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, shall establish a [fee plaza] beyond a distance of kilometres from a municipal or local town area limits:

                  Provided that the executing authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, locate or allow the concessionaire to locate a [fee plaza) within a distance of ten kilometres of such municipal or local town area limits, but it no case within five kilometres of such municipal or local town area limits;

                  Provided further that where a section of the national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, is constructed within the municipal or town area limits or within five kilometres from such limits, primarily use of the residents of such municipal or town area, the [fee plaza) ma established within the municipal or town area limits or within a distance f kilometres from such limits.

                  (2) Any other fee plaza] on the same section of national highway and the same direction shall not be established within a distance of sixty kilometes;

                  Provided that where the executing authority deems necessary, it may for reasons to be recorded in writing, establish or allow the concessionaire establish another fee plaza within a distance of sixty kilometres:

                  Provided further that a fee plaza may be established within a distance of sixty kilometres from another fee plaza if such fee plaza is for collection fee for a permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel.

                  16.11. A plain reading of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, indicates that the executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, is required to establish a toll plaza beyond a distance of ten kilometres from the limits of a municipal or local town area. The rationale underlying this stipulation is evident: Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 seeks to ensure that the residents of municipal or local town areas are not impeded in their free and routine movement by the imposition of tolls for short-distance daily travel.

                  16.12. The first proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 carves out a limited exception, permitting the establishment of a toll plaza within a distance of ten kilometres from such municipal or local town area limits, subject to two mandatory conditions. First, the executing authority must record reasons in writing justifying such location; and second, even in such cases, the toll plaza cannot, under any circumstances, be located within five kilometres of the municipal or local town area limits.

                  16.13. Thus, even where the exception under the first proviso is invoked, the statute imposes a clear and absolute embargo against the establishment of a toll plaza within five kilometres of municipal or local town area limits. The discretion conferred on the executing authority or the concessionaire is, therefore, narrowly circumscribed and cannot be exercised in derogation of this express statutory prohibition.

                  16.14. The second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 operates in a distinct and limited field. It applies where a section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel is constructed within the municipal or town area limits, or within five kilometres thereof, and is intended primarily for the use of the residents of such municipal or town area. In such exceptional circumstances, a toll plaza may be established within the municipal or town area limits or within five kilometres from such limits.

                  16.15. The determinative expression in the second proviso is 'primarily for the use of the residents of such municipal or town area'. This necessarily implies that the exception is confined to cases where the infrastructure is designed predominantly to serve the local population, and not where the highway or facility caters substantially to through traffic or persons travelling from outside the municipal or town area.

                  16.16. Consequently, the exception carved out under the second proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 would have no application where the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel is predominantly used by persons who are not residents of the municipal or town area. The rationale is self-evident: while non-residents may use such infrastructure only occasionally, the residents of the municipal or town area would be compelled to use it on a daily and recurring basis for access to essential services.

                  16.17. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 8, which prohibits the establishment of another toll plaza on the same section of a National Highway and in the same direction within a distance of sixty kilometres, does not directly arise for consideration in the present case, as the grievance of the petitioners is not founded on the proximity of toll plazas inter se. The grievance, rather, is that the distance between the Somanahalli toll plaza and the next toll plaza is approximately eighty-nine kilometres, resulting in the petitioners being compelled to pay toll calculated for the entire stretch, despite using only a small portion thereof. It is, however, relevant to note that since the next toll plaza is situated at a distance of about eighty-nine kilometres, the statutory restriction of maintaining a minimum distance of sixty kilometres between toll plazas leaves a buffer of nearly twenty-nine kilometres, within which the Somanahalli toll plaza could be shifted, if required, without infringing the mandate of sub-rule (2) of Rule 8.

                  16.18. The expression 'establish' occurring in sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, cannot be construed in a purely physical or construction-centric sense divorced from its statutory purpose. A toll plaza, though structurally erected, does not visit any legal or civil consequence upon residents until it is made operational and toll collection commences. Rule 8 is a resident-protective provision intended to prevent routine and compulsory toll imposition on inhabitants of municipal or local town areas for short-distance daily travel. Any interpretation that freezes compliance as on the date of approval or construction, irrespective of subsequent inclusion within municipal limits prior to commencement of toll collection, would defeat the object of the Rule and permit the very mischief it seeks to avoid. Accordingly, for the purposes of Rule 8, the establishment of a toll plaza must necessarily be read as establishment for the purpose of levy and collection of fee.

                  16.19. Rule 9 of the Fee Rules 2008 deals with discounts offered for usage of such National Highway, the said Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008 is reproduced hereunder for easy reference;

                  9. Discounts. (1) The executing authority or the concessionaire, as the case may be, provide for multiple journey to cross a toll plaza within the specified period at the rates specified in sub-rule(2) of rule 9.

                  (2) A driver, owner or person in-charge of a mechanical vehicle who makes use of the section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, and he or she shall have to pay the fee in accordance with the following rates, namely:

                 

                  (3) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle [with valid functional FASTag] registered for non-commercial purposes and uses it as such for commuting on a section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, may obtain a pass, on payment of fee at the base rate for the year 2007-2008 of rupees one hundred and fifty per calendar month and revised annually in accordance with rule 5, authorising it to cross the '[fee plaza] specified in such pass:

                  Provided that such pass shall be issued only if such driver, owner or person in-charge of such mechanical vehicle resides within a distance of twenty kilometres from the [fee plaza] specified by such person and the use of such section of national highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel, as the case may be, does not extend beyond the [fee plaza] next to the specified [fee plaza]:

                  Provided further that no such pass shall be issued if a service road or alternative road is available for use by such driver, owner or person in-charge of a mechanical vehicle.

                  (3A) A person, who owns a commercial vehicle (excluding vehicle plying under National Permit), 3[with valid functional FASTag] registered with address on the Registration Certificate of a particular district and uses such vehicle for commuting on a section of the National Highway, permanent bridge, tunnel or bypass, as the case may be, which is located within that district, shall be levied user fee on all [fee plazas] which are located within that district, at the rate of fifty per cent of the prescribed rate of fee:

                  Provided that no such concession shall be provided, if a service road or alternative road is available for use by such commercial vehicles.

                  (3B) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle registered for non-commercial purpose, having a valid and functional Fastag, shall be eligible to obtain a pass on payment of fee of rupees three thousand which shall be valid for one year or for two hundred crossings through any fee plaza on a national highway, whichever is earlier, irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza;

                  Provided that in a closed user fee collection system, entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a fee plaza shall be considered as a single crossing.

                  (3C) The amount of fee payable under sub-rule (3B) may be revised annually with effect from the 1st April of every year in accordance with rule 5."

                  (4) No pass shall be issued or fee collected from a driver, owner or person in-charge of a mechanical vehicle that uses part of the section of a national highway and does not cross a [fee plaza].

                  16.20. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 9 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, provides for the issuance of passes enabling multiple journeys through a toll plaza within a specified period, at the rates prescribed under sub-rule (2) thereof.

                  16.21. In terms of sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, a driver, owner or person in charge of a mechanical vehicle using a section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel may opt for such passes and pay the fee in accordance with the rates set out in the table appended thereto, namely, one and a half times the fee for a single journey for two crossings within twenty-four hours, or two-thirds of the fee payable for fifty single journeys valid for one month. Such a pass, however, is expressly limited to fifty single journeys, and upon exhaustion of the said limit, the user would be required to pay the regular toll fee.

                  16.22. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 further provides that a person owning a mechanical vehicle registered for non-commercial purposes and using it for commuting on a section of a National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel may obtain a monthly pass on payment of fee at the base rate of the year 2007-2008, namely Rs. 150/- per calendar month, revised annually in accordance with Rule 5, authorising such person to cross the toll plaza specified in the pass.

                  16.23. The first proviso to sub-rule (3) stipulates that such a pass shall be issued only if the owner, driver or person in charge of the vehicle resides within a distance of twenty kilometres from the specified toll plaza, and the use of the National Highway, permanent bridge, bypass or tunnel does not extend beyond the toll plaza next to the specified toll plaza.

                  16.24. The second proviso to sub-rule (3) provides that no such pass shall be issued if a service road or an alternate road is available for use by such driver, owner or person in charge of a mechanical vehicle.

                  16.25. Reading sub-rule (3) together with its provisos, it follows that a monthly pass may be issued to a person residing within a radius of twenty kilometres from the toll plaza, at the prescribed base rate (as revised), only in the absence of a service road or an alternate road. It is on this basis that Ms. Shruti Chaganti, learned counsel for the National Highways Authority of India, has contended that the petitioners are entitled to avail such a pass on payment of the currently applicable rate of Rs.340/- per month.

                  16.26. She has further relied upon the amendment to Rule 9 by which an additional proviso has been introduced, providing that where a Closed User Fee Collection System is implemented, no such pass would be issued. On that premise, it is contended that there is no statutory obligation on the part of the respondents to implement a Closed User Fee Collection System, nor do the petitioners have any vested right to demand such implementation, and that the availability of a monthly pass on payment of Rs.340/-constitutes an adequate alternative.

                  16.27. I'am unable to accept the aforesaid contention. The scheme of Rule 9 operates in a distinct field and presupposes the lawful establishment and operation of a toll plaza in accordance with Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008. The availability of discounted or concessional passes under Rule 9 is intended only to mitigate the incidence of toll for certain categories of users and cannot be construed as a substitute for compliance with the mandatory location restrictions prescribed under Rule 8, nor can it legitimise the levy of toll in circumstances where local residents are left with no real choice but to repeatedly traverse the toll plaza for access to essential services. A measure which compels payment as the only means of exercising a fundamental freedom of travel, in the absence of any reasonable alternative, fails the test of proportionality, as the restriction imposed is neither necessary nor the least restrictive means of achieving the stated object. A paid pass, even at a concessional rate, does not alter the character of the levy where the imposition itself is rendered compulsory by the absence of any service road or alternate road. The contention that the availability of a monthly pass obviates the need either to comply with Rule 8 or to consider alternate access mechanisms is, therefore, untenable.

                  16.28. In Sub-rule (3A) of Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008 was introduced by way of amendment on 12.01.2011, which reads as under;

                  (3A) A person, who owns a commercial vehicle (excluding vehicle plying under National Permit), 3[with valid functional FASTag] registered with address on the Registration Certificate of a particular district and uses such vehicle for commuting on a section of the National Highway, permanent bridge, tunnel or bypass, as the case may be, which is located within that district, shall be levied user fee on all [fee plazas] which are located within that district, at the rate of fifty per cent of the prescribed rate of fee:

                  Provided that no such concession shall be provided, if a service road or alternative road is available for use by such commercial vehicles.

                  16.29. A plain reading of sub-rule (3A) indicates that it provides a limited concession to owners of certain categories of commercial vehicles registered within a district, permitting levy of user fee at fifty per cent of the prescribed rate at fee plazas located within that district, subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated therein.

                  16.30. The proviso to sub-rule (3A) expressly stipulates that no such concession shall be available where a service road or an alternate road is provided. Consequently, sub-rule (3A) contemplates a regime where, in the absence of a service road or alternate road, even locally registered commercial vehicles are required to pay fifty per cent of the applicable toll fee for each passage through the toll plaza. This provision, therefore, does not alleviate the grievance of the petitioners but, on the contrary, reinforces the fact that in the absence of any free or alternate access, local users, including those operating within the same district, are compelled to make recurring toll payments.

                  16.31. Accordingly, sub-rule (3A) of Rule 9, which merely reduces the quantum of toll payable in specified circumstances, neither addresses the statutory infraction arising under Rule 8 nor cures the constitutional infirmity occasioned by compelling local residents to repeatedly pay toll in the absence of any service road or alternate route.

                  16.32. Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008 was introduced by way of amendment on 17.06.2025, which reads as under;

                  (3B) A person who owns a mechanical vehicle registered for non-commercial purpose, having a valid and functional Fastag, shall be eligible to obtain a pass on payment of fee of rupees three thousand which shall be valid for one year or for two hundred crossings through any fee plaza on a national highway, whichever is earlier, irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza;

                  Provided that in a closed user fee collection system, entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a fee plaza shall be considered as a single crossing.

                  16.33. Sub-rule (3B) of Rule 9 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, was introduced by way of amendment dated 17.06.2025. It enables a person owning a non-commercial mechanical vehicle with a valid and functional FASTag to obtain a pass on payment of a fee of Rs.3,000/, valid for one year or for two hundred crossings through any fee plaza on a National Highway, whichever is earlier, irrespective of the fee leviable at each fee plaza.

                  16.34. The proviso to sub-rule (3B) stipulates that in a Closed User Fee Collection System, the entry and exit of a mechanical vehicle through a fee plaza shall be treated as a single crossing. Sub-rule (3B), therefore, is a general provision applicable to all eligible users and not one specifically tailored to local residents or persons compelled to make repeated short-distance journeys.

                  16.35. Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008, therefore, is a provision which applies in general to all persons and not only to the residents of that area and in terms of Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008, any person having a functional FASTTAG can obtain a pass by making payment of a fee of Rs.3,000/- which shall be valid for 200 crossings. That is to say, it is not an unlimited pass but is limited to 200 crossings. Thus, Sub-rule (3B) of Fee Rules, 2008 in my considered opinion, will also not be of any help to the petitioners who are likely to make use of the toll plaza on multiple occasions on a day. Even if it were to be taken that they use the toll plaza only once a day, then they could use the toll plaza only 200 days in a year by making payment of a sum of Rs.3000/- and not use it for more than 200 times.

                  16.36. Insofar as Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Fee Rules, 2008 is concerned, the submission of Ms.Shruti Chaganti, learned counsel for NHAI, is that if the petitioners were to make payment of sum of Rs.340/- per month, which is revisable every year, they could use the toll plaza on unlimited occasions. Thus, in my considered opinion, it is only Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of Fee Rules, 2008, which could be considered by this Court to assess if the rights of the petitioners under Article 19(d) and 21 of the Constitution are impinged by levy of such a fee.

                  16.37. As indicated supra, the petitioners are residents of the surrounding areas of the toll plaza and/or required to make use of the toll plaza to access any of their daily requirements, including refueling of the vehicle in such a situation where there is no alternate road or a service road established, it would but be required for the petitioner to make use of the toll plaza by making payment of the toll fee or availing of the pass under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008.

                  16.38. What would have to be considered is that many of these residents are small farmers who would be required to cross the toll plaza, though no toll fee is required to be paid for crossing of the toll plaza by use of a two-wheeler, three-wheeler, tractors and animal-drawn vehicles. The fact remains that in today's world, a car, which is a four-wheeler, is no longer a luxury but is one that is available with most of the people, if a four wheeler is used to cross the toll, the toll fee is required to be paid. Thus, the argument of the NHAI would only be that the residents not use a car, but use a two- wheeler or a three-wheeler or a tractor to cross a tall plaza, thereby virtually calling upon the residences not to use their cars, which in my consider opinion would be a restriction of their right to travel under Article 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

                  16.39. As indicated supra, the reasons why, under Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008 a toll plaza is to be established more than 10 Km from the municipal or local town area limits is so as to not cause any fetter on the movement of the residents of the area.

                  16.40. In the present case, though the GBA has been established subsequently in the year 2025, the fact remains that the Toll Plaza has not been made operational at the time when the GBA was established and with the GBA being established, the Toll Plaza has now come within the limits of the GBA. Thus, ex-facie contravening the requirement of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008.

                  16.41. I am unable to accept the arguments of Ms.Shruti Chaganti., learned counsel for the NHAI that when the Toll Plaza was approved the said area did not come within the limits of the GBA inasmuch as what would be required to be seen is the date on which the collection of toll would be made. Though this may be a peculiar situation where the GBA has been established even before the toll plaza was made operational, there would always be a situation which would arise where a toll plaza having been established would subsequently come within the municipal or local town area limits.

                  16.42. In terms of sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Fee Rules, 2008, the expression 'establishment' of a toll plaza must necessarily be understood as establishment for the purpose of levy and collection of fee, so as to give full meaning and effect to the object and purport of the provision. The underlying intent is that no citizen residing within the local area of a toll plaza should be compelled to pay toll for his or her daily commute. Any interpretation to the contrary would result in an unjust and disproportionate burden on residents who, by reason of geography, are constrained to use the National Highway as the sole means of access to their everyday necessities.

                  16.43. Roads and highways are public infrastructure created for the benefit of citizens, and their operation must serve that end. To require a resident to make daily, monthly or annual payments merely to access hospitals, banks, police stations, veterinary hospitals, agricultural centres, fertiliser outlets, schools, colleges, public transport facilities, government offices, markets, fuel stations and other essential services is to transform a facilitative public utility into a source of recurring hardship. Such an imposition places an undue financial burden on citizens who may be ill-equipped to bear it and amounts to a restriction on ordinary day to day life itself.

                  16.44. This Court cannot be oblivious to the lived realities of the residents inhabiting the villages and habitations surrounding the toll plaza. For them, the National Highway is not a corridor of choice or convenience, but the sole arterial road connecting them to essential services and emergency facilities. Its use is neither occasional nor discretionary; it is compelled by circumstance. To require such residents to repeatedly pay toll merely to conduct the ordinary affairs of life imposes a daily financial and psychological burden wholly disproportionate to the benefit purportedly conferred.

                  16.45. The contention that this burden may be mitigated through discounted or monthly passes overlooks the fundamental inequity inherent in such an approach. A citizen residing in the vicinity of a toll plaza ought not to be placed in a position where access to essential services is conditioned upon the capacity to make recurring payments, however modest such payments may appear in abstraction. Constitutional freedoms cannot be calibrated on assumptions of affordability, nor can dignity of movement be reduced to a subscription-based entitlement.

                  16.46. The Court must also take judicial notice of the ground realities emerging from the material on record. It is not uncommon to find residents resorting to the use of tractors for transport of people, a practice that appears to have evolved, in part, because such vehicles are exempt from payment of toll. A tractor is plainly not designed for the carriage of persons, and the use of such vehicles for human transport, often at considerable risk to life and limb, cannot be regarded as an acceptable or lawful alternative. The very adoption of such unsafe practices underscores the absence of reasonable and lawful access options.

                  16.47. These circumstances ought to have prompted the respondents to address the issue holistically by providing a service road or an alternate road, or at the very least, by extending free local passes to verified residents. Instead, the insistence that residents must adapt their lives to the toll regime reveals the disproportionate burden cast upon them by the impugned arrangement. Infrastructure must serve citizens; citizens are not required to reorganise their lives around infrastructure.

                  16.48. Ultimately, this Court is not merely engaged in a textual construction of subordinate legislation, but in giving effect to its constitutional purpose. Where the only available road to access basic necessities is rendered conditional upon payment, the distinction between a user fee and a compulsory exaction becomes blurred. Interpreting Rules 8 and 9 in a manner that compels local residents to pay for every act of living would defeat the object of the Rules and fall foul of the principles of fairness, proportionality and human dignity that animate Articles 14, 19(1)(d) and 21 of the Constitution. Residency can always be verified through appropriate documentation; what cannot be sustained in law is the imposition of a recurring financial barrier on residents merely to access the necessities of life, particularly when the concessions under sub-rules (3A) and (3B) of Rule 9 are inapplicable or inadequate in the present case.

                  16.49. In that view of the matter, I answer point No.1 by holding that the location of the Toll Plaza at Somanahalli violates Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

                  16.50. I answer point No.2 by holding that the levy of toll without providing a service route or an alternate route is arbitrary and unreasonable, violating Article 14, 19(1)(d) and Article 21 of the Constitution.

17. Answer to point No.3; Whether toll collection without installation of a Closed User Fee Collection System violates Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

                  17.1. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that a Closed User Fee Collection System ought to have been implemented admits of considerable force. Such a system would have ensured that local residents are charged only for the actual distance travelled and the actual use made of the National Highway. The stand of the National Highways Authority of India, however, is that the provision of paid passes under Rule 9 of the Fee Rules, 2008 constitutes a sufficient and lawful alternative, both to the establishment of a Closed User Fee Collection System and to the provision of a service road or alternate road.

                  17.2. This contention betrays a deeply troubling approach. Instead of addressing the structural hardship imposed upon local residents, the respondent authority seeks to normalise it by offering payment-based 'alternatives', thereby shifting the entire burden of its own infrastructural omissions onto citizens who have no meaningful choice in the matter. The suggestion that residents may purchase passes to mitigate hardship reduces the exercise of fundamental freedoms to a transactional privilege, available only upon the payment of recurring charges.

                  17.3. The Court finds it disquieting that a statutory authority entrusted with the development and management of national highways would contend that the absence of a service road, the absence of an alternate road, and the absence of a Closed User Fee Collection System can all be cured by compelling residents to pay, month after month, merely to go about the ordinary business of living. Such an approach is antithetical to the role of the State as a facilitator of access and mobility and instead treats citizens as captive users of infrastructure over which they exercise no real choice.

                  17.4. A Closed User Fee Collection System is not a gratuitous concession; it is a mechanism expressly contemplated by the statutory framework to ensure fairness and proportionality in toll collection. Where residents are compelled by geography to use a particular stretch of highway repeatedly and for short distances, the failure to implement such a system, coupled with the insistence on toll collection through blunt and uniform methods, results in manifestly arbitrary outcomes. The respondents cannot be permitted to evade this obligation by pointing to paid passes as a substitute, particularly when such passes themselves impose a financial burden on economically vulnerable populations.

                  17.5. In the present case, the respondents have chosen the most onerous course for the citizen: they have neither provided a service road nor an alternate road; they have declined to implement a Closed User Fee Collection System; and yet they insist upon toll collection, effectively compelling residents to pay for every act of daily existence. This Court is unable to countenance such an abdication of responsibility. In the absence of all three safeguards, the insistence on toll collection from local residents is plainly unjust, oppressive and contrary to the scheme of the Fee Rules, 2008.

                  17.6. I answer to point No.3 by holding that toll collection without installation of a Closed User Fee Collection System violates Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008?

18. Answer to point No.4: What order?

                  18.1. In view of my answers to point No.1 to 3, I pass the following;

                  ORDER

                  i. The writ petition is partly-allowed.

                  ii. A writ of mandamus is issued directing the respondents, particularly respondent Nos.2 to 5, to issue free local resident passes, without levy of any toll or user fee, to the petitioners and to all other similarly placed local residents who apply for such passes, subject to verification of their residency, enabling their unrestricted ingress and egress through the Somanahalli Toll Plaza for access to their residences, agricultural lands, workplaces and essential services.

                  iii. The exercise of verification of residency and issuance of such free passes shall be completed within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

                  iv. In the event of failure on the part of the respondents to comply with the direction contained in clause (iii) above within the stipulated time, the respondents shall forthwith cease collection of toll at the Somanahalli Toll Plaza and shall remove and relocate the said toll plaza to a location in conformity with Rule 8 of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

                  v. It is clarified that no toll shall be levied or collected from the petitioners or other eligible local residents pending compliance with this order.