Supreme Court Upholds 2016 Ruling: No Toll on DND Flyway
In a landmark judgment, the Supreme Court on Friday ruled that commuters using the Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) flyway will no longer have to pay toll tax. The court dismissed the appeal filed by Noida Toll Bridge Corporation Limited (NTBCL) against the 2016 order of the Allahabad High Court, which had quashed toll collection on the 9.2-kilometer stretch.
Noida Authority Overstepped Its Powers
A bench led by Justice Surya Kant observed that the Noida Authority lacked the authority to delegate toll collection rights to NTBCL, especially since the company had already recovered its project costs. The bench further noted that this delegation led to “unjust enrichment of the company at the cost of the public,” highlighting the financial burden such toll collections placed on commuters.
Background of the Case
The case has its roots in a 2016 judgment by the Allahabad High Court, which prohibited toll collection on the DND flyway. The High Court’s decision came in response to a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by the Federation of Noida Resident Welfare Association. The PIL raised concerns about the legality of the concessionaire agreement between the Noida Authority and NTBCL, under which the latter was authorized to levy tolls.
The High Court had struck down the concessionaire agreement, terming it unfair and detrimental to public interest. NTBCL later approached the Supreme Court to challenge this decision, arguing that toll collection was justified.
Supreme Court Affirms Public Interest
The Supreme Court’s ruling upheld the principles of public welfare, emphasizing that infrastructure projects should not serve as avenues for undue profit once their costs have been recovered. By affirming the Allahabad High Court’s decision, the apex court reinforced the need for transparency and accountability in public-private partnerships.
Implications of the Judgment
The decision is a major relief for commuters who use the DND flyway daily, as it eliminates an additional financial burden. It also sets a significant precedent for similar cases, ensuring that concessionaire agreements prioritize public interest over private gains.
This judgment reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to protecting public rights and curbing practices that exploit infrastructure projects for excessive profits.
