Section 32 Arbitration Act | Termination for Non-Payment of Fees Ends Arbitrator’s Mandate; Remedy Lies in Section 14(2): Supreme Court False Allegations of Dowry and Bigamy Amount to Mental Cruelty: Madras High Court Upholds Divorce Plaintiff Must Prove Her Own Title Before Seeking Demolition Of Defendant’s Pre-existing House: Andhra Pradesh High Court Mismatch Between Bullet and Recovered Gun Fatal to Prosecution: Calcutta High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Murder Where the Conduct of the Sole Eye-Witness Appears Unnatural and No Independent Witness Is Examined, Conviction Cannot Stand: Allahabad High Court Fraudulent Sale of Vehicle During Hire Purchase Renders Agreement Void: Gauhati High Court Upholds Decree for Refund of ₹4.90 Lakhs Unsigned Written Statement Can’t Silence a Defendant: Hyper-Technical Objections Must Yield to Substantive Justice: Delhi High Court Default Bail | No Accused, No Extension: Delhi High Court Rules Custody Extension Without Notice as Gross Illegality Under Article 21 Gratuity Can Be Withheld Post-Retirement for Proven Negligence Under Service Rules – Payment of Gratuity Act Does Not Override CDA Rules: Calcutta High Court Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case State Can’t Block SARFAESI Sale by Late Revenue Entries: Secured Creditor’s Charge Prevails Over Tax Dues: Punjab & Haryana High Court Slams Sub-Registrar’s Refusal Providing SIM Card Without Knowledge of Its Criminal Use Does Not Imply Criminal Conspiracy: P&H High Court Grants Bail in UAPA & Murder Case Importer Who Accepts Enhanced Valuation Cannot Later Contest Confiscation and Penalty for Undervaluation: Madras High Court Upholds Strict Liability under Customs Act "Allegations Are Not Proof: Madras High Court Refuses Divorce Without Substantiated Cruelty or Desertion" When FIR Is Filed After Consulting Political Leaders, the Possibility of Coloured Version Cannot Be Ruled Out: Kerala High Court Mere Allegations of Antecedents Without Conviction Can't Defeat Right to Anticipatory Bail: Kerala High Court Section 106 Of Evidence Act Cannot Be Invoked In Vacuum – Prosecution Must First Lay Foundational Facts: Karnataka High Court Acquits Wife And Co-Accused In Husband’s Murder Case Parity Cannot Be Claimed When Roles Are Different: Karnataka High Court Refuses Bail to Youth Accused of Brutal Killing Injured Wife Would Not Falsely Implicate Her Husband: Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction in Domestic Stabbing Case Disputed Bids, Missing Evidence and No Prejudice: Delhi High Court Refuses to Intervene in Tender Challenge under Article 226 Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction

Chronic Toll Default by State Buses Cannot Be Justified in the Name of Public Service: Madras High Court Orders Stoppage of Government Buses for Non-Payment of ₹276 Crores

08 August 2025 12:40 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


“A Jolt Is Necessary to Make Officials Act”, In a scathing judgment Madras High Court, through Justice N. Anand Venkatesh, took a hard stand against the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) and related government bodies for their brazen defiance of toll payment obligations. Deciding the case titled M/s Madurai-Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited & Others v. Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation & Others (W.P. Nos. 31006 of 2024 & batch), the Court observed that “the Corporations have placed themselves in a precarious situation” by failing to settle long-pending dues that ballooned to ₹276 crores, and directed an unprecedented coercive measure: stopping all TNSTC buses from passing through the petitioners' toll plazas from 10th July 2025.

The Court’s firm tone was evident when it stated, “unless and otherwise the order which will jolt the officials is passed, they will not take efforts to settle this dispute, which has been going on for many years together.” The Court also ordered police protection for the toll operators, setting a powerful example of judicial enforcement of statutory rights.

The petitioners, a group of tollway operators led by M/s Madurai-Kanyakumari Tollway Private Limited, approached the Court invoking the National Highway Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008, against the continued evasion of toll fee payments by state-run transport corporations. The legal dispute revolved around both the massive arrears owed and consistent violations of mandatory FASTag regulations by government buses plying through national highways in Tamil Nadu.

The toll operators presented a detailed calculation, showing that even after adjusting previous payments of ₹48.5 crores, the principal outstanding toll amounted to ₹113 crores, which further escalated to ₹276 crores when interest and penalties were accounted for. The petitioners argued that the state’s deliberate failure to comply with statutory obligations severely impacted infrastructure maintenance and violated their concession agreements.

The Court took note of several prior rulings in favour of toll operators, particularly the orders passed in W.P. No. 27064 of 2014 and similar cases where Division Benches had clearly held that state buses cannot be exempt from paying tolls.

The core legal issue revolved around the enforceability of toll dues against state transport undertakings and whether coercive measures, including stopping buses, could be justified in light of persistent non-payment and FASTag violations.

Justice N. Anand Venkatesh did not mince words in condemning the state’s conduct. He remarked, “no effort was made to find out a solution towards settling the dues payable to the petitioners,” and further noted that “on at least three occasions, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has repeatedly held that if the dues are not cleared, the buses belonging to the Corporations can be stopped.”

Confronted with the plea of public inconvenience, the Court acknowledged, “This Court is aware of the potential consequences since ultimately it is the common man who is using these government buses who will be adversely affected.” However, it clarified that the chronic nature of non-compliance justified the stringent remedy. “Unless and otherwise the order which will jolt the officials is passed, they will not take efforts to settle this dispute,” the Court stressed.

On the aspect of FASTag violations, the Court observed blatant disregard of statutory mandates and Ministry of Road Transport and Highways notifications by TNSTC, thereby aggravating the breach of statutory duties.

Justice Venkatesh directed the petitioners to enforce a stoppage of all government buses at their toll plazas starting from 10th July 2025, until such time the corporations either cleared their dues or provided a viable payment solution.

“The longer the payments are delayed, the more the penalty and interest will escalate, potentially reaching astronomical proportions,” the Court warned, highlighting the consequences of continued delinquency.

Given the anticipated friction at toll gates, the Court issued a firm directive to the Director General of Police: “There shall be a direction to provide sufficient police protection at all toll plazas belonging to the petitioners. The Police shall ensure that no undue pressure is exerted on the toll plazas belonging to the petitioners to permit the buses belonging to the Corporations to ply.”

The Court made it clear that the onus was entirely on the state transport corporations to rectify their defaults if they wished to resume unhindered highway access. The matter was adjourned to 16th July 2025 for further monitoring, with the Court retaining seisin over the enforcement process.

The Madras High Court’s ruling stands as a rare but resounding assertion of private rights against state apathy in the context of public infrastructure management. By directing the stoppage of state-run buses for toll evasion and FASTag non-compliance, the Court balanced its awareness of public inconvenience against the greater public interest in maintaining the rule of law and contractual integrity.

In the Court’s own words, “the problem of road maintenance is interlinked with the failure of these State Enterprises to pay the toll charges.” This case is now a watershed moment in India’s judicial efforts to ensure that even government bodies are not above statutory compliance.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2025

Latest Legal News