AR. JAYRATHUTHRAN Vs. NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, appearing in person, has filed this writ petition, styled as public interest litigation, seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 3 to ensure proper maintenance, safety standards, and upgradation of the Kappalur-Uthangudi (Madurai Outer Ring Road) National Highways commensurate with the toll charges collected; and to ensure smooth, uninterrupted, and hassle-free travel, to the toll-paying commuters and direct all the respondents to prohibit the conduct of political rallies, religious congregations, processions, cultural events, as well as the construction of marriage halls, community halls, commercial complexes, malls, or any similar establishments, and further to revoke any permissions or licenses already granted for such establishments, which are situated abutting or in the immediate vicinity of the Kappalur-Uthangudi (Madurai Outer Ring Road) National Highways-areas that experience heavy vehicular movement and to ensure strict implementation of the provision that no arbitrary exemption is granted to political convoys or private individuals, except those expressly exempted under law.

(2.) Though petitioner seeks omnibus prayers by way of this public interest litigation, he restricts his challenge only to ensure proper maintenance, safety standards, and upgradation of the Kappalur-Uthangudi (Madurai Outer Ring Road) National Highways commensurate with the toll charges collected; and to ensure smooth, uninterrupted and hassle-free travel to the toll-paying commuters; and direct all the respondents to prohibit the conduct of political rallies, religious congregations, processions, cultural events and to ensure strict implementation of the provision that no arbitrary exemption is granted to political convoys or private individuals, except those expressly exempted under law.

(3.) Even as per the earlier order dtd. 19/9/2025, passed in this writ petition, the prayer is too wide, vague and unsubstantiated, except for the grievance pertaining to congestion in the toll plaza by various cars, which form part of convoys of persons who pass through the toll plaza, substantial number of whom do not pay the requisite fee. Therefore, on this specific aspect respondent Nos.1 and 3 were directed to file counter.