ISLAMABAD: While issuing an interim stay order on Friday in response to a plea challenging the legality of penalties imposed on motorists travelling on motorways with a low M-Tag balance or without an M-Tag, Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir sought a detailed response from the National Highways Authority (NHA) and other respondents in the matter.
Earlier, invoking the jurisdiction of the Islamabad High Court, the petitioner had challenged the legality of an NHA notification under which an additional 50 per cent toll is charged on vehicles travelling without an M-Tag or with an inadequate M-Tag balance.
The M-Tag system, introduced by the NHA to enable electronic toll collection on motorways, requires motorists to maintain a prepaid balance linked to a tag installed on their vehicle, allowing toll deductions without the need to stop at manual collection booths.
Advocate Yahya Farid Khawaja, appearing before the single-member bench of Justice Arbab Muhammad Tahir on behalf of petitioner Muhammad Jalal Haider, urged the court to declare the May 30, 2025 notification unlawful and to direct the Authority to refund all amounts collected under the policy. The Ministry of Communications, the NHA, and other relevant authorities were made respondents in the case.
Substantiating his client’s claim, Advocate Khawaja argued that under Section 10 of the NHA Act, the Authority is competent only to collect toll tax and is not empowered to impose penalties on motorists. He contended that the Act contains no provision allowing fines for either non-M-Tag vehicles or those with low M-Tag balances, and that any such levy amounted to a penalty rather than a toll, which falls outside the Authority’s statutory mandate. The petition further alleged that the NHA was collecting penalties without any legal basis and that the policy violated Articles 4, 18, 24 and 25 of the Constitution, which pertain respectively to the right to be dealt with in accordance with law, freedom of trade and movement, protection of property rights, and due process.
The petitioner contended that the additional charge, being punitive in nature, could not be imposed through an administrative notification without express legislative backing, and that doing so amounted to the Authority exceeding the powers conferred upon it under its parent statute.
The petitioner urged the court to declare the May 30 notification unconstitutional and to direct the NHA to refund all penalties collected under it since its enforcement. He also sought details of the mechanism governing M-Tag balances, including how deductions are calculated, monitored and reconciled, and requested the court to direct the Authority to disclose the operational framework behind the policy’s implementation.
After a brief hearing, the court issued notices to the NHA and other respondents, directing them to submit a detailed response in the matter.
The case has been adjourned for further proceedings, pending which the interim stay order restraining enforcement of the additional toll under the impugned notification will remain in effect.
