The Bombay High Court on March 13 dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the mandatory use of FASTag for all vehicles crossing National Highway toll plazas. [Arjun Raju Khanapure v Union of India].The PIL filed by one Arjun Raju Khanapure sought quashing of the circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that imposed double toll fees on vehicles without FASTags, effective from February 15, 2021.A Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said that it is a policy decision which cannot be interfered with by courts."The introduction of a FASTag is a policy decision aimed for providing efficient and seamless road travel.......It is a trite position of law that a policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review only if they are arbitrary or violate the fundamental rights," the Court said.It further opined that it cannot accept the petitioner's argument that the public in India is not capable of handling FASTag since a lot of them are illiterate and may not have a bank account required for the system."At present, there is rarely any person in this country, especially in cities like Mumbai, Pune, who do not use a mobile phone, and when the mobiles are used, the users are also acquainted with the procedure of its recharge. Though it is not expected that the person should be thoroughly techno-savvy for use of FASTag as it is a simple procedure, which could also be worked offline, in the backdrop of the avowed object with which the FASTag is introduced, we do not see any reason why we should interfere in the policy decision,” the Court said.FASTag is an electronic toll payment system in which an electronic tag is affixed on the windscreen of the vehicle and linked to a savings account of the vehicle owner.The account can be recharged online and the vehicle can drive through toll plazas without need for physical cash transactions. The FASTag is detected at the toll plaza and the toll amount gets deducted from the account of the vehicle owner..The PIL before the High Court challenged circulars issued by NHAI on February 12 and 14, 2021 which mandated that vehicles without FASTags pay double the toll fees when using the FASTag lanes. Khanapure argued that converting cash lanes into exclusive FASTag lanes was illegal and arbitrary as it caused undue hardship for commuters, particularly those not familiar with technology.He also expressed concerns that illiterate individuals and those without bank accounts would be disproportionately impacted, which could violate their rights under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution..During the hearing, Khanapure’s counsel Uday Warunjikar argued that the implementation of FASTag was flawed due to insufficient technological infrastructure and that imposing double toll fees was an arbitrary penalty. However, the Senior Advocate RV Govilkar, appearing for the Central government, defended the policy, explaining that the use of FASTags had been planned since 2014. He highlighted that FASTags were easily available and offered conveniences like recharging through UPI and prepaid wallets. Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing NHAI, added that the move was part of a broader strategy for creating a more efficient toll system and easing traffic congestion..The court, in its ruling, emphasized that the decision to implement FASTag was a policy decision aimed at improving efficiency. “It is a misconception of the petitioner that the amount collected from the vehicle, which is not fitted with FASTag, is by way of penalty” the court clarified. The Court explained that the double toll fee was not a penalty but a charge for using the FASTag lane without the necessary tag. The Court further emphasized that the aim of the policy was to encourage the use of FASTag, reduce fuel consumption and ease traffic flow.Subsequently, it ruled that the policy to restrict cash payments at toll plazas was rational and in public interest. “Once the policy of use of FASTag on the National Highways has been rolled out, which was meticulously planned by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India) and implemented phase-wise by the Respondent No.2(NHAI), it is expected to cover each and every individual/vehicle, which intend to use the Highway or part of Highway and has to be a part of the scheme or else, he will have to be left stranded on the road or else face the provision which subjects him to double rate of fee, which he would have otherwise required to pay,” the order said. In view of the above, the Court found no reason to interfere with the policy and dismissed the same..Dr Uday Warunjikar with advocates Vijaykumar B Dighe and Amol Ohal appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate RV Govilkar with advocates DP Singh and Shaba Khan appeared for Union of India. Advocate General Birendra Saraf with advocates Vaibhav Charalwar, Prashant Mishra, Bharat Jadhav, Purva Birla and Darshil Shah appeared for NHAI.Advocate Sahil Mate instructed by Pradumna Sharma appeared for another respondent..[Read Judgment]
The Bombay High Court on March 13 dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) petition challenging the mandatory use of FASTag for all vehicles crossing National Highway toll plazas. [Arjun Raju Khanapure v Union of India].The PIL filed by one Arjun Raju Khanapure sought quashing of the circulars issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) that imposed double toll fees on vehicles without FASTags, effective from February 15, 2021.A Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre said that it is a policy decision which cannot be interfered with by courts."The introduction of a FASTag is a policy decision aimed for providing efficient and seamless road travel.......It is a trite position of law that a policy decisions can be subjected to judicial review only if they are arbitrary or violate the fundamental rights," the Court said.It further opined that it cannot accept the petitioner's argument that the public in India is not capable of handling FASTag since a lot of them are illiterate and may not have a bank account required for the system."At present, there is rarely any person in this country, especially in cities like Mumbai, Pune, who do not use a mobile phone, and when the mobiles are used, the users are also acquainted with the procedure of its recharge. Though it is not expected that the person should be thoroughly techno-savvy for use of FASTag as it is a simple procedure, which could also be worked offline, in the backdrop of the avowed object with which the FASTag is introduced, we do not see any reason why we should interfere in the policy decision,” the Court said.FASTag is an electronic toll payment system in which an electronic tag is affixed on the windscreen of the vehicle and linked to a savings account of the vehicle owner.The account can be recharged online and the vehicle can drive through toll plazas without need for physical cash transactions. The FASTag is detected at the toll plaza and the toll amount gets deducted from the account of the vehicle owner..The PIL before the High Court challenged circulars issued by NHAI on February 12 and 14, 2021 which mandated that vehicles without FASTags pay double the toll fees when using the FASTag lanes. Khanapure argued that converting cash lanes into exclusive FASTag lanes was illegal and arbitrary as it caused undue hardship for commuters, particularly those not familiar with technology.He also expressed concerns that illiterate individuals and those without bank accounts would be disproportionately impacted, which could violate their rights under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution..During the hearing, Khanapure’s counsel Uday Warunjikar argued that the implementation of FASTag was flawed due to insufficient technological infrastructure and that imposing double toll fees was an arbitrary penalty. However, the Senior Advocate RV Govilkar, appearing for the Central government, defended the policy, explaining that the use of FASTags had been planned since 2014. He highlighted that FASTags were easily available and offered conveniences like recharging through UPI and prepaid wallets. Advocate General Birendra Saraf, representing NHAI, added that the move was part of a broader strategy for creating a more efficient toll system and easing traffic congestion..The court, in its ruling, emphasized that the decision to implement FASTag was a policy decision aimed at improving efficiency. “It is a misconception of the petitioner that the amount collected from the vehicle, which is not fitted with FASTag, is by way of penalty” the court clarified. The Court explained that the double toll fee was not a penalty but a charge for using the FASTag lane without the necessary tag. The Court further emphasized that the aim of the policy was to encourage the use of FASTag, reduce fuel consumption and ease traffic flow.Subsequently, it ruled that the policy to restrict cash payments at toll plazas was rational and in public interest. “Once the policy of use of FASTag on the National Highways has been rolled out, which was meticulously planned by the Respondent No.1 (Union of India) and implemented phase-wise by the Respondent No.2(NHAI), it is expected to cover each and every individual/vehicle, which intend to use the Highway or part of Highway and has to be a part of the scheme or else, he will have to be left stranded on the road or else face the provision which subjects him to double rate of fee, which he would have otherwise required to pay,” the order said. In view of the above, the Court found no reason to interfere with the policy and dismissed the same..Dr Uday Warunjikar with advocates Vijaykumar B Dighe and Amol Ohal appeared for the petitioner.Senior Advocate RV Govilkar with advocates DP Singh and Shaba Khan appeared for Union of India. Advocate General Birendra Saraf with advocates Vaibhav Charalwar, Prashant Mishra, Bharat Jadhav, Purva Birla and Darshil Shah appeared for NHAI.Advocate Sahil Mate instructed by Pradumna Sharma appeared for another respondent..[Read Judgment]
