PIL Challenges Legality of Toll Collection at Mumbai’s Entry Points

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Bombay High Court challenging the legality of continued toll collection from heavy vehicles entering Mumbai through five key entry points. The petition argues that the ongoing toll collection violates constitutional and statutory provisions and imposes an arbitrary financial burden on vehicle owners.

---

Details of the PIL and Parties Involved

The PIL, filed by advocate Pravin Wategaonkar, names the Chief Secretary of Maharashtra and the Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation (MSRDC) as respondents. The MSRDC manages major arterial roads in Mumbai and collects toll through contractors.

Currently, only heavy vehicles entering Mumbai through five major entry points —

1. Dahisar,

2. LBS Road (Mulund),

3. Eastern Express Highway (Mulund),

4. Airoli Creek Bridge, and

5. Vashi —
   are required to pay toll tax.

Earlier, even light motor vehicles paid tolls ranging from ₹45 to ₹75. However, they were exempted from toll payment in October 2024, following public opposition.

---

Grounds for the PIL

The petitioner has termed the continued toll collection as “mala fide, arbitrary and illegal.” The primary contention is that the MSRDC has not disclosed the total capital outlay it was authorized to recover for constructing flyovers and maintaining roads such as:

• Eastern Express Highway,

• Western Express Highway,

• Sion-Panvel Highway, and

• Lal Bahadur Shastri (LBS) Marg.

Wategaonkar filed an RTI application in October 2023, seeking details about the Build-Operate-Transfer (BOT) agreement between the MSRDC and the state government. Instead of providing the BOT contract, the MSRDC supplied outdated documents from 2010, only showing Cabinet Infrastructure Committee approvals for earlier tendering processes.

---

Government Extension and Constitutional Objection

A Government Resolution (GR) allows the MSRDC to continue toll collection from heavy vehicles till September 17, 2029, citing compensation for revenue losses due to exemption for light vehicles.

The petitioner, however, argues that this extension violates the Constitution of India, which under Article 265, states:

“No tax shall be levied or collected except by authority of law.”

This implies that any collection without statutory sanction or exceeding the permitted duration is ultra vires (beyond legal authority).

According to the Motor Vehicles Act, 1958, while determining the rate of toll and period of collection, the state must account for the total capital outlay and ensure that once the cost is recovered, toll collection ceases. Continuing to collect toll beyond that period amounts to arbitrary taxation, burdening citizens unjustly.

---

Constitutional Provisions Related to PILs

The concept of Public Interest Litigation originates from the judicial activism era post-1980s, where courts expanded locus standi (right to sue) to allow citizens to raise issues affecting the public at large. PILs are a mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency in governance.

Key constitutional provisions empowering PILs include:

• Article 32 – Right to Constitutional Remedies (for filing PILs in the Supreme Court).

• Article 226 – Power of High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of fundamental and legal rights.

• Article 265 – Restricts arbitrary taxation without authority of law.

• Article 14 – Guarantees equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action.

The current PIL invokes these articles to challenge toll collection as unconstitutional and unjustified.

---

Relevance of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Act

The Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Act governs the imposition and collection of taxes on vehicles using state roads. It mandates that tolls or taxes be levied strictly for specific purposes, such as road construction, maintenance, or improvement.

If a project recovers its initial investment and continues to charge tolls without justification or legal extension, it contravenes the Act’s purpose and becomes an illegal exaction.

Therefore, the PIL argues that both the 2002 notification authorizing toll collection and the 2025 Government Resolution extending it should be declared ultra vires of the Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Tax Act and the Constitution of India.

---

Why Toll Collection Must Stop After Recovery

Toll collection is designed as a temporary revenue recovery model under the BOT framework — where a private or public entity builds infrastructure, operates it for a fixed duration to recover costs, and then transfers ownership to the government.

However, continued tolling beyond cost recovery defeats its intent and becomes exploitative.
It imposes recurring costs on:

• Transporters and logistics companies, who face higher operational costs.

• Consumers, as these costs are passed down in prices of goods.

• Common citizens, who bear indirect economic burdens through inflation and reduced affordability.

Stopping toll collection after the recovery period aligns with the principle of public good and fiscal fairness, ensuring that public infrastructure remains accessible and affordable.

---

The Larger Picture: Transparency and Accountability

The PIL underscores a growing demand for transparency in infrastructure financing. Without clarity on the BOT agreement, project cost, or total toll collection, citizens remain unaware of how long they must keep paying for infrastructure already funded through taxes.

Ensuring transparency in toll collection serves multiple purposes:

• Prevents financial exploitation of road users.

• Encourages public trust in governance.

• Strengthens accountability in public-private partnerships.

If upheld, this case could set a precedent across India, compelling authorities to disclose financial details of toll projects and prevent arbitrary extensions.

---

Conclusion: A Call for Fiscal Justice

The Bombay High Court’s verdict on this PIL could redefine the contours of infrastructure taxation and citizen rights. It raises a fundamental question: once the public has paid enough, when does the state stop collecting?

The outcome will determine whether toll collection remains a tool for infrastructure development or turns into a permanent levy on citizens’ mobility.

As the petitioner rightly highlights, ensuring lawful, time-bound, and transparent toll collection is not just a legal necessity — it’s a matter of economic fairness and public accountability.

---