There are three parties involved: the concessionaire, the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI) and a sleeping partner, the government, which was to receive around half the toll revenue. Within three years of tolling starting in 2008, disputes had arisen over poor service quality - entailing huge economic losses in terms of time and fuel as thousands idled at the tollgate - and the amount of revenue being actually collected. Eventually, a little over two years ago, the NHAI moved to cancel the arrangement - whereupon a fourth party emerged in the form of the lender who had financed the concessionaire. It turns out that it had lent far more than what was required and stood to lose a great deal of money if the contract was cancelled. It approached the courts and, as a result, a number of solutions were suggested - such as abolishing the tolling at the entry from Delhi in Haryana and moving it to another point about 15 km away. Thus, instead of collecting toll at two points, the concessionaire would collect a slightly higher toll at a single point and for a longer period. Unfortunately, this would let off free of charge hundreds of thousands of vehicles that do not cross the second tollgate. However, that part of Gurgaon, which lies between the two tollgates, is for all practical purposes a part of Delhi - which had disingenuously argued in 2007 that it would not allow around 11 of the 27 km to be tolled as they lay within its municipal limits. Overall, the solution under consideration is a sensible one and ought not leave anyone but the lenders worse off, and even they can get their money back in time.
One lesson is obviously that concessionaires chosen should fulfil a set of fit and proper criteria, as stringently applied as for financial institutions, because the opportunities for cheating are so high. Second, there should be strict enforcement of electronic tolling so that traffic doesn't have to be stopped for collecting the toll. Those who do not have such devices installed in their vehicles should be routed differently. Third, once a contract is signed, it should not be changed by any of the parties because often that is where the problems start. If these three things are done, there is no reason for tolling to get a bad name and public-private partnerships can proceed apace.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Access to Exclusive Premium Stories
Over 30 subscriber-only stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app