JUDGMENT:

HARJIT SINGH BEDI J.

1. This judgment will dispose of the three appeals before us. The facts relating to these appeals are as under: On 15th October, 2004, one Mr. C.K. Garg, a Senior Advocate in Jaipur wrote a letter to Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Keshote, a Judge of the Jaipur Bench of the Rajasthan High Court complaining that though senior citizens were entitled to Airlines tickets on concession, certain conditions had been imposed thereon in fact nullified the concessions. The two conditions that were complained of by Mr. Garg were:-

(i) that the Airlines required that a senior citizen applying for a concessional ticket had to do so 7 days in advance of the journey; and

(ii) that the senior citizen was required to stay a minimum of 2 days at the outgoing destination in order to be eligible for the return ticket.

2. It appears that this matter was taken up as a Public Interest Litigation by a Division Bench of the High Court and notice was issued to the Airlines i.e. Jet Airways and the Indian Airlines, to the Union of India and to the Indian Railways though no relief had been claimed against the last two. On issuance of notice several replies were filed by the respondents controverting the pleas made by the petitioner and also justifying the imposition of the conditions. It was pointed out that the conditions were justified on account of the administrative and financial constraints which went with the concessions and as a concession could not be claimed as matter of right, it was open to the respondents to impose any condition on the concession so granted. We have been told during the course of arguments that some of the conditions which had been complained of have in fact been removed subsequently and the present exercise is largely academic insofar as Jet Airways is concerned inasmuch that the direction for the tickets being booked seven days in advance has since been withdrawn.

3. The Division Bench by its judgment dated 9th May, 2005, which has been impugned in the present set of appeals, issued certain directions to Jet Airways, Indian Airlines and the Indian Railways with regard to the concessions and extended the scope of the public Interest Litigation yet further on the basis of a news item published in the 'Dainik Bhaskar' a local Hindi daily newspaper on 2nd March, 2005, reporting the death of four children who had been run over by a speeding train and, accordingly, issued certain directions pertaining to railway safety as well. The Division Bench found that the condition of 7 days prior purchase and the condition of a stay two nights at the outgoing destination was, in its considered opinion, unreasonable. Consequently, the Airlines were directed to give concessions to senior citizens without insisting on the twin conditions of purchasing tickets 7 days in advance and calling upon them to stay at least two nights at the outgoing destination.

4. The question of the Railways was then taken up and it was directed that the conditions placed by the Railways with regard to the purchase of concessional tickets at the Railway ticketing window at the railway station alone and restrictions on a change of the class of ticket or extension of journey etc. were again unjustified and it was directed as under:-

"We are of the opinion that Railway should extend the benefit of concession to a senior citizen on changing class of journey, extension of journey etc. irrespective of the fact whether the transaction occurs at railway reservation counter or at the railway ticketing window at railway station or in a train during journey" As already indicated, certain directions were also given with regard to making life safer for those who lived alongside the railway track on the basis of the news item published in the 'Dainik Bhaskar'

5. At the very outset, Mr. P.H. Parekh, the learned senior counsel representing the newly added respondent--the Consumer Education and Research Society has pointed out that the Railway safety matter