Full Text
W.P.(C) 2281/2013
SH. RAJIV (JOLLY) KHOSLA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Adv.
Through: Mr Himanshu Bajaj, Adv for Respondents 1 and 2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN O R D E R 10.04.2013
This is a petition filed by the Secretary General of National Panthers Party
Delhi Pradesh, seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate concession to the students studying in schools, colleges and vocational institutes in
Delhi while travelling on the network of respondent No. 5—Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation (DMRC). In support of the petition, the petitioner is relying upon
Articles 39(a) (b) and (d), 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Constitution of India. This is also the case of the petitioner that Ministry of Railways is granting 60% concession to the students in Kolkata Metro.
JUDGMENT
2. A perusal of the letter dated 21.02.2013 sent by DMRC to the petitioner would show that the aforesaid request has already been rejected on W.P.(C) 2281/2013 2013:DHC:1834-DB the ground that fares of DMRC are fixed by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted by the Central Government in terms of the Delhi Metro Railway Operation & Maintenance Act and the said recommendations are binding on Metro Railway Administration. No discount for any individual or specific group for travel on DMRC system has been approved by the Committee.
3. Though the aforesaid letter dated 21.02.2013 had been received by the petitioner much before he filed this petition, there is no challenge to the aforesaid letter in the writ petition. The case of the DMRC is that the fares are fixed by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted by Central Government is statutorily binding upon it and the fares so fixed do not provide for any concessional travel for the students. However, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the fares fixed by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted by the Central Government. In the absence of any challenge to the aforesaid fares and consequent letter of DMRC dated 21.02.2013, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner. Even otherwise, if DMRC provides concession to the students, travelling on its network, it will have to find out alternative means to meet the shortfall, which it will have in its revenues on account of extending such a concession to the students, and in the absence of any subsidy from the Government, the only option left with DMRC would be to increase its fares for the common public. If such a course of action is to be adopted, the consequence would be that other sections of the society, who travel on Delhi Metro Rails, will have to bear the burden of concession to the students travelling on the said network. We, therefore, find no justification to give such a direction to DMRC.
4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Indian Railways has provided concession to the students travelling on Kolkata Metro as would be evident from the letter dated 24.07.2009 filed with the writ petition. Admittedly, Kolkata Metro is run by Indian Railways and not by a company such as DMRC. The students travelling on the network of DMRC are not entitled to concession merely because Indian Railways has chosen to give concession to the students travelling on its Kolkata Metro network. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, J APRIL 10, 2013 BG