IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
Stelling Technologies Pvt. Ltd. (Railyatri In) and Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9864, 8562, 8570, 8598, 8613, 8625 of 2017; Civil Miscellaneous No. 40141, 35240, 35264, 35340, 35398, 35431 of 2017
Decided On : 05-04-2019
V. Kameswar Rao, J.
W.P.(C) 9864/2017
This petition has been filed by M/s Stelling Technologies Pvt. Ltd., which operates the website known as Railyatri.in.
2. There are two petitioners in this writ petition. It is the case of the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is an e-commerce entity providing digital platform services to act as a facilitator between e-ticket booking passenger and authorized Retail Service Providers (hereinafter referred to as RSPs). Petitioner no.2 is a shareholder of petitioner no.1. It is stated by the petitioners that petitioner No.1 is not in the business of actually booking railway tickets. It is their case that petitioner No.1 hosts a website called "RailYatri.in" and a related phone app. It is with the help of this digital platform that the petitioner No.1 provide what is called an e-market place for potential buyers, i.e., train travelers and sellers to come together for ticket booking. It is their case that on the digital platform potential buyers of products and services amongst them those seeking to book railway e-tickets from the authorized RSPs get in touch with legitimate third party/sellers/vendors and RSPs who have voluntarily and contractually associated with petitioner no.1 on the said digital platform including the service of booking e-tickets through the respondent IRCTC's booking engine/interface after following all extent rules of the respondent. It is stated that the RSPs have contractually warranted to the petitioners for such contractual relation.
3. It is stated that the respondent (IRCTC) enjoy a monopolistic position for issuing railway e-tickets. Pursuant to which it has floated various schemes for their sale. Under one such scheme, which is B2B Scheme, the respondent has appointed several Principal Service Providers (hereinafter referred to as PSPs) for the purpose of booking railway tickets on its web portal. Each PSPs would in turn have several hundred agents working under it as Retail Service Providers (for short "RSPs"). These RSPs, for the purpose of booking railway e-tickets on the respondent's (IRCTC) booking engine/interface, are provided a unique identification number and a dongle which is their access credential to the said booking engine/interface. The RSPs are required to follow certain rules and regulations as mandated by the respondent (IRCTC) in relation to this activity.
4. The petitioner No.1 having set up its digital platform somewhere in the year 2015 entered into contractual agreements with several RSPs in 2017 governing the use of its digital platforms and the service to be provided by the contracting parties thereto, i.e., RSPs. It is stated that the said agreements contained specific clauses ensuring compliance with IRCTC's rules and regulations about payments and adherence to RBI's notifications governing digital payments. It was agreed therein that every potential e-ticket booking rail traveler (customer) using petitioner No.1's digital platform would be directed to the RSPs for them to book the said e-ticket using authorized booking credential/access code only through the respondent's booking engine/interface.
5. It was on June 19, 2017, that a complaint was filed with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Railways and Crime, Delhi ostensibly on charge of the petitioner No.1 carrying on illegal booking and providing meals in trains. The said complaint is said to be presently subject matter of CS (OS) 519/2017 filed by the respondent (IRCTC) against the petitioner. On July 27, 2017, the respondent (IRCTC) also filed a complaint with the Cyber Crime Cell, Delhi Police bearing DD No. 675 alleging therein that the petitioner No.1 was involved in procuring e-tickets without authorization of the respondent.
6. It is stated that despite the said complaints pending, on August 8, 2017, 8-9 personnel of the respondent IRCTC along with a Sub-Inspector of De
ABL Intl. Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd.
Ajay Hasia Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravarddi
Chairman Railway Board and Anr. Vs. Chandrima Das and Ors.
D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd.
Gorkha Security Services Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Gulam Abbas and Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.
Harbanslal Sahnia Vs. Indian Oil Corporation
K.K. Saxena Vs. International Commissioner on Irrigation and Drainage
M.P. State Agro Industries Development Corp. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Jahan Khan
Mani Subrat Jain Jain and Ors. Vs. State of Haryana and ors.
Noble Resources Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa and Anr.
Reliance Telecom ltd. Vs. Union of India
S.R. Venkataraman Vs. Union of India and Anr.
Uptron India Ltd. Vs. Shammi Bhan
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.