Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.

1. In all these cases basically a singular question arises for consideration.

2. The appellant in W.A. Nos.275 of 2013 & 1136 of 2015, who is the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.25752 of 2013, is an association of IATA accredited travel agents in India. They claim to be ticket selling agents, who sell tickets and get business to various Airlines, domestic and international. The submission on behalf of the appellants would be that Rule 3(54A) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 defines “Tariff” to include the commission payable to the agents and further Rule 135 requires every air transport undertaking to establish “tariff” having regard to all relevant factors including cost of operation, characteristics of service, reasonable profit and generally prevailing tariff. Explanation (b) to sub Rule (2A) of Rule 135 is also referred to, to contend that “tariff” as published or advertised in any other way shall show a complete break-up of the total amount, indicating the fare, tax, fees or any other charge and fees has been explained to mean the amount payable to the service providers for provision of any service or facility to the passengers. The submission thus would be that commission payable to an agent is a statutory charge, statutorily payable and to be statutorily shown as a part of the tariff, as also on the ticket to be issued. That being so, the Airlines must fix commission for each ticketing transaction and show it as a part of the tariff. The relevant provisions are quoted hereunder:

Rule 3(54A): “Tariff” means any fare, rate or charge collected by an air transport undertaking for the carriage of passengers, baggage or cargo, including the commission payable to the agents, and the conditions governing such fair, rate or charge.

Rule 135. Tariff (1) Every air transport undertaking operating in accordance with sub-rules (1) and (2) of rule 134, shall establish tariff having regard to all relevant factors, including the cost of operation, characteristics of service, reasonable profit and the generally prevailing tariff.

(2) Every air transport undertaking shall cause to be published the tariff established by him under sub-rule (1) in his website or two daily newspapers, and shall display such tariff in a conspicuous part of his office and in the office of his agent, if any.

(2A) The tariff to be published under sub-rule (2) or advertised in any other way shall show the following particular, namely:-

(a) the total amount payable by a passenger; and

(b) a complete break-up of the total amount, indicating the fare, tax, fees or any other charge, if any, separately.

Explanation;- For the purposes of this sub-rule, -

(a) tax means the amount payable to the Government;

and

(b) fees means the amount payable to the service providers for provision of any service or facility to the passengers.”

xxxxxx xxxxx xxxxxx

3. On the other hand, the learned counsel for some of the Airlines, who have been arrayed as respondents, submits that Airlines have their own packages for their ticketing agents. It is open to any person to join those packages and they would accordingly be remunerated. But, the contention that commission is a statutory obligation and must form part of the tariff, meaning thereby in respect of every ticket sold, cannot be accepted. For, according to the learned counsel, commission is a contractual remuneration payable by a principal to the agent and is a pure and simple commercial contract. It is submitted that what the appellant seeks to do is to convert a purely contractual obligation, by giving it a statutory colour, and then seek for a mandamus for its payment. Such a relief cannot be granted.

4. Sri. P. Ravindran, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, drew our attention to Exts.P2 and P3 as available in W.P.(C) No.25752 of 2013, to contend that the Director General of Civil Aviation had directed the Airlines to implement its decision regarding commission payable to agents. He further refers to Ext.P1