Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging Imposition Of Double Toll Fees On Non-FASTag Vehicles

Noting that the introduction of FASTag was a policy decision aimed for providing efficient road travel, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharati Dangre remarked ,“At present, there is rarely any person in this country, specially 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 and, though, it is not expected that the person should be thoroughly techno-savvy for use of FASTag as it is simple procedure, which could also be worked off-line and 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 petitioner sought quashing of the Circulars dated 12/02/2021 and 14/02/2021 issued by the NHAI, wherein the commuters without FASTag should pay double the toll fees instead of the actual toll fees. The petitioner also sought directions 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 petitioner contended that there may be a class of people who are not yet introduced to technology and by restricting the movement of their vehicles and collecting double toll fees is arbitrary. He argued that imposing a 'penalty' on non FASTag users violated their right to free movement under Article 19(1)(d) of the Constitution.

The Court noted that FASTag introduced in 2014 was gradually implemented throughout the country and made mandatory only after giving sufficient time to public to adopt to it. It noted that in order to incentivize the adoption of FASTag, Ministry of Road Transport & Highways provided for cashback ranging from 10% to 2.5% on toll transactions via FASTag from 2016 till 2020.

The Court did not accept the petitioner's submission that the amount collected from a vehicle not fitted with Fastag is a 'penalty'. It noted that it is a 'fee' as per second provision of Rule 6(3) of National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008.

It also rejected the petitioner's contention that mandating the use of FASTag violates the fundamental rights of citizens. It noted that it was a wrong assumption that the vehicle without Fastag would not be allowed to cross the toll plaza as the notification dated 14/02/2021 states that any vehicle, which is not fitted with FASTag, shall obtain a FASTag at the POS set up at the fee plaza, affix it and activate it on the spot before entering into the fee plaza lane.

“We do not find any restriction on the movement of the vehicle, as claimed by the Petitioner, but in order to encourage use of FASTag, in place of cash, it is imperative for the vehicle to pay double fee.”

It remarked that the use of FASTag has been made user-friendly as there are many options open for instant recharging including UPI, online banking and other apps.

The Court noted that most people use a mobile phone and are acquainted with the procedure of its recharge. Noted that the use of FASTag is a simple procedure, it remarked that “It is difficult to fathom that the public in India is not well equipped to handle the FASTag…”

The Court thus held that the decision to restrict the use of cash is not arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights. In view of the above, the Court dismissed the petition.

Case title: Arjun Raju Khanapure vs. Union of India & Ors. (Public Interest Litigation No.75 Of 2021)

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 96