Tenant Who Pays Rent After Verifying Landlord’s Will Cannot Dispute His Title Under Section 116 Evidence Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Dismisses Eviction Challenge by HP State Cooperative Bank Clever Drafting Cannot Override Limitation Bar: Gujarat High Court Rejects Suit for Specific Performance Once Divorce by Mutual Consent Is Final, Wife Cannot Pursue Criminal Case for Stridhan Without Reserving Right to Do So: Himachal Pradesh High Court Freedom of Speech Ends Where National Security Begins: Allahabad HC Rejects Neha Singh Rathore’s Anticipatory Bail Juvenile Cannot Be Jailed Even During Age Inquiry: Allahabad High Court Declares 8-Year Custody of Murder Accused Illegal Mere Passage of Time Is No Ground for Bail under Gangster Act: Allahabad High Court Rejects Second Bail Plea of Habitual Offender Judicial Discretion Permits Tailored Sentencing Even in Heinous Offences: Supreme Court Merely Three Generic Questions Asked Under Section 313 CrPC – This is Not Compliance, But a Mockery of Due Process: Supreme Court Courts Cannot Evade Responsibility by Calling Their Own Orders Ambiguous: Supreme Court Revives Contempt Plea in Land Acquisition Case Conviction Can Stand, But Sentence Must Serve Justice: Supreme Court Reduces Imprisonment in Grievous Hurt Case After Compromise Between Parties Explanation to Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act Makes It Abundantly Clear That Pre-2005 Partitions Cannot Be Reopened: : Orissa High Court Dismisses Daughters’ Claim No Valid ‘Nikah’ Without Halala Compliance: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Maintenance Order Amid Dispute Over Muslim Woman’s Remarriage With Former Husband Custodial Beating Not Part of Official Duty: Madhya Pradesh High Court Rejects Police Officer’s Plea for Protection Under Section 197 CrPC Void Marriage Cannot Confer Legal Status: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Injunction Against Woman Claiming Wife’s Status in Bigamy Dispute Adult Sons Can't Hide Behind Mother's Saree to Excuse Inaction: Orissa High Court Refuses to Condon Delay in Restoration Plea Judicial Service Exam Cannot Sustain on Legal Inaccuracy: Karnataka High Court Intervenes to Correct Legal Misinterpretation in Judicial Exam Answer Key POCSO Charges Fail Without Proof of Minority: Karnataka High Court Acquits Accused in Rape Case Mere Caste Identity Not Enough to Prove Atrocity: Supreme Court Acquits Two in SC/ST Act Case, Slams “Perverse” High Court Inference Section 482 BNSS | Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Granted Mechanically by Ignoring Status Report & Accused’s Conduct: Supreme Court Mere Presence or Relationship Is Not Enough—Prosecution Must Prove Participation and Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Allahabad High Court Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Evidence of Injured Eye-Witnesses Must Be of Sterling Quality — Not of a Doubtful and Tainted Nature: Bombay High Court Acquits Five Life Convicts in Murder Case Refund of Provisional Pilferage Amount Is Lawful If Theft Not Proved: Calcutta High Court Upholds Acquittal in Electricity Theft Case Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Cannot Be Rejected by Conducting Mini-Trial on Disputed Facts: Delhi High Court Section 17 PWDV Act | Senior Citizen’s Peace Trumps Daughter-in-Law’s Residence Right Where Alternative Accommodation Provided: Delhi High Court Access Must Meet Agricultural Necessities, Not Mere Pedestrian Use: Karnataka High Court Modifies Easement Width from 3 to 6 Feet Section 302 IPC | Suspicion Cannot Substitute Proof: Kerala High Court Acquits Man in Septic Tank Murder Case Domestic Violence Allegations Can’t Always Be Painted as Attempt to Murder: Meghalaya High Court Invokes Section 482 CrPC to Quash Matrimonial Assault Case Post-Settlement

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