IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANJULA CHELLUR, M.S. SONAK, JJ.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority - Petitioner
Versus
The Fare Fixation Committee and Ors. - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO. 2605 OF 2015
Decided On : 04-12-2017
MANJULA CHELLUR, J.
1. The present petition is filed challenging the recommendations and the decision made by the Fare Fixation Committee (hereinafter referred to as 'FFC') for increase in the Mumbai Metro Fare from Rs.9 – Rs.13 in the year 2014-15 which came to be increased to Rs.10 – Rs.110 from January 2015.
2. The petitioner before us is Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'MMRDA'). It is an authority established under Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 which is mainly concerned with the Planning, Co-ordination and Supervision of proper, orderly and rapid development of areas in the Metropolitan Region of Mumbai. It is also under an obligation to execute the plans, projects and schemes for such development as well as matter connected therewith. The petitioner – MMRDA is also the authority for implementing Metro project i.e. Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar Corridor Mass Rapid Transit System (Metro project). This came to be planned by the State Government in order to absolve chaotic conditions faced by users of public transport i.e. BEST buses and local trains.
3. The respondent no.1 is the Fare Fixation Committee constituted by second respondent – Union of India in terms of Section 34 of the Metro Railway (Operation and Maintenance) Act of 2002 {for short known as 'Metro Act'}. The first respondent was constituted by an order dated 7th April 2015 to determine the fares for Metro project. Respondent no.3 is the State of Maharashtra which has constituted/designated the petitioner as Project Implementation Agency for Metro project. Respondent no.4 - Mumbai Metro One Pvt. Ltd (for short known as MMOPL) is a private company jointly incorporated by M/s. Reliance Ltd, Veolia Transport S.A. and the MMRDA and are holding 69%, 5% and 26% shareholding respectively. The MMOPL is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to undertake the business of designing, building, operating and maintaining the Metro project on Build, Own, Operate and Transfer (BOOT) basis, subject to and in accordance with the terms of the Concession Agreement which came to be entered into between MMRDA and MMOPL.
4. It is not in dispute that MMRDA as Implementing Agency for Metro project came out with a Detailed Project Report (DPR) providing for actual commencement of operations in 2011, and stipulated that the Metro fares should be fixed at 1.5 times the ordinary (Non Air-conditioned) BEST bus fares. This corresponds to fare ranging between Rs.6 to 10 in 2011 to be revised by 11% every four years. The DPR also estimated Ridership figures ranging from 5.66 lakhs per day in 2011 to 12.06 lakhs passengers per day in 2041. An international competitive bidding/global tenders came to be invited by the MMRDA on 21st August 2004 by a notice. This was an invitation for proposal of Metro Project on BOOT basis subject to terms and conditions specified in the request for proposals. The project was to be implemented on Private/Public Partnership (PPP) basis. Some of the salient features in the proposals were mentioned as under :
(a) The Concession Agreement was to be for 35 years, including the construction period of five years.
(b) The Metro was to operate on an East-West corridor of 11.50 kms along 12 stations.
(c) The estimated Ridership was 5.66 lakhs per day opening at the beginning in the year 2011 and this was to enhance upto 12.06 lakhs per day at the end of 30 years term in 2041 from 2011.
(d) The Bidders were, however, required to make their own estimates of Ridership, financial and other details.
(e) The initial fare was fixed between Rs.6 – 8 – 10 for the year 2003-04 and was subject to upward revision by 11% at every four years.
(f) Each of the bidder was required to submit a Detail Business Plan indicating arrangement of finances, operation and maintenance plan, sources and usage of the funds, projected an
Aswini Kumar Ghose vs. Arabinda Bose
A.G. Varadarajulu and anr. Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and ors.
C.I.T. vs. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited
Central Bank of India vs. State of Kerala and ors
Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guaram
Dominion of India vs. Shrinbai A. Irani
Daman Singh Vs. State of Punjab
ICICI Bank Ltd. Vs. SIDCO Leathers Ltd. and ors.
Madhav Rao Scindia vs. Union of India
Rohtas Industries vs. S.D. Agarwal
R.S. Raghunath Vs. State of Karnataka
Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. & Ors. vs. Union of India
Sharda Devi vs. State of Bihar
State of U.P. vs. Renusagar Power Co.
gpt-4
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.