Supreme Court dismisses Noida Toll Bridge Company’s final attempt to revive toll collection on DND Flyway, citing past profiteering and legal violations.
News Desk, New Delhi, 10-May: In a scathing rebuke of public-private profiteering, the Supreme Court has dismissed the review plea filed by Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd (NTBCL) seeking to reinstate toll collection on the Delhi-Noida Direct (DND) Flyway. The bench, led by Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan, ruled that the company had already recovered its investment and profited significantly, with no justification left to burden commuters further.
While NTBCL’s review plea was rejected outright, the Court accepted minor modifications in its earlier judgment concerning Pradeep Puri, a Director of NTBCL, after submissions clarified that certain personal remarks against him lacked foundation in the CAG report.
Justice Surya Kant’s sharp remark — “You’ve already minted enough” — reflected the bench’s firm stance on the matter, citing “unjust enrichment” and misuse of public infrastructure for private gain.
The original judgment, which had dismissed NTBCL’s appeal against a 2016 Allahabad High Court ruling, was upheld. That ruling had struck down the concessionaire agreement, noting that the toll was no longer justified, as project and maintenance costs had been recovered with profit.
⚖️ Court’s Reasoning and Article 14 Concerns
- The Court found the concessionaire agreement to be skewed, deliberately designed to operate indefinitely without public oversight.
- No competitive bidding or tenders were issued before awarding the DND project to NTBCL, violating Article 14 of the Constitution which mandates fairness and transparency in state actions.
- The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) report exposed how inflated project costs and misused administrative funds unjustly burdened the public.
- The apex court clarified that even though this was a commercial contract, the PIL filed by the Federation of Noida Resident Welfare Associations was valid due to the large-scale public interest involved.
The Court reiterated that government projects involving public funds must follow fair, accountable, and transparent procedures. Arbitrary agreements, it said, set dangerous precedents and foster mistrust in state mechanisms.
"Public assets must not serve as profit engines under the guise of infrastructure development," the bench observed, adding that NTBCL’s collection of tolls beyond project recovery was constitutionally indefensible.
For insights on public interest litigation and infrastructure policy, check out more in our National News and Views & Insight sections.
📺 For expert analysis and courtroom highlights, watch our video reports on The Legal Observer YouTube Channel.
In House Development | The Legal Observer
