Allahabad High Court Rejects An Advocate's PIL Against Centre's Mandatory FASTag Policy

A bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Vikas Budhwar observed thus:

“…(this) decision apparently cannot be faulted in view of fast changing scenario of the National Highways wherein in absence of FASTag facility, commuters used to line up for long hours at a particular Toll Plaza for passing through them.”

The Court also noted that the Central Government is empowered under the National Highways Act, 1956 and the NH Fee Rules 2008 to provide a seamless passage mechanism regarding the Fee Plaza by making FASTags mandatory.

Essentially, the petitioner (Advocate Vijay Pratap Singh) had moved the HC questioning the validity of provisions of Part of Section 7 of the National Highways Act, 1956 and the Central Government's notification dated 13.02.2021 declaring all lanes of Fee Plaza as FASTag lanes.

The petitioner travelled from Allahabad to Varanasi through NH-19 in his car, which does not have a FASTag, on June 3, 2024. He crossed the Fee Plaza Handia, Allahabad, and on his return from Varanasi, he crossed the same plaza. During his two-way journey, he was penalised for not having a FASTag.

His counsel submitted that under Section 3 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Taxation Act, 1997, the petitioner had already paid a one-time tax at the applicable rates, and, therefore, charging the fee at the Toll Plaza amounted to double taxation.

It was further submitted that the said fee was not chargeable under the provisions of the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

Lastly, it was argued that charging a fee based on the type of vehicle is not justified; the same may be charged based on the value of the vehicle, in the same way as Road Tax is.

It was specifically pleaded that the provisions of Part of Section 7 be declared unconstitutional, and the notification declaring all lanes of Fee Plaza as FASTag Lane is arbitrary and whimsical and, therefore, the same deserves to be set aside.

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner's challenge to the validity of Section 7 of the Act was misplaced.

The Court said that the toll fee is governed by Section 8(A), which allows the Central Government to enter into agreements for developing and maintaining national highways and specify the collection of toll fees.

Further, regarding a challenge to the NH Rules 2008, the Court noted that the second proviso of Sub Rule (3) of Rule 6 (2008), which mandates that vehicles without a FASTag would be liable to pay double the applicable toll fee, was a policy decision of the Central Government to designate all lanes at toll plazas as FASTag lanes. This promotes digital payment and efficient passage, addressing issues of long wait times at toll plazas.

The Court also rejected the plea pertaining to double taxation on the ground that the “purport and authority for imposing road tax and charging of toll fee are totally independent of each other and under different legislations.”

In view of the fact situation, the Court held that it could not be said that any public interest is involved in the present petition, wherein the petitioner, a lawyer, having decided not to fit a FASTag in his car, was required to pay the amount in accordance with the provisions of the Act and Rules.

In addition to the above, the Court added that the enabling provisions have not been questioned, which is reason enough not to entertain the present petition. Therefore, the PIL plea was dismissed.

Appearances

Counsel for Petitioner: Arun Mishra

Counsel for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Pranjal Mehrotra

Case title - Vijay Pratap Singh vs. Union Of India And Another 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 503

Click Here ToRead/Download Order