Back
2020 Supreme(J&K) 652
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Gita Mittal, CJ and Rajesh Bindal, J.
(Through video conference from Srinagar) & (On video conference from residence at Jammu)
Y.V. Sharma and another —Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others —Respondents
PIL No. 27/2015 IA No. 1/2018 With WP PIL No. 24/2016
Decided on 17.08.2020
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Mr. B.S. Salathia, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pulkit Chrungoo, Advocate (Present at the time of hearing on 05.03.2020)
For the Respondent No. 4:Mr. Inderjeet Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 6:Mr. Anuj Dewan Raina, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 7:Mr. Rahul Pant, Advocate.
Judicial review is not concerned with economic policy or price fixation.
Headnote:
PIL - Airline Pricing - Aircraft Rules, 1937 - Rule 135
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners filed a writ petition complaining about arbitrary pricing of airline tickets by private airlines and the difficulties faced by passengers, seeking directions to subsidize airfare and bring uniformity in ticket prices. Another petitioner complained about exorbitant airfare for Ladakh region, leading to the consolidation of both petitions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petition not maintainable due to the availability of alternative statutory remedies and lack of specific allegations. It held that judicial review is not concerned with economic policy or price fixation, and dismissed the petitions.
Issues: Maintainability of the writ petition, availability of alternative statutory remedy, prohibition with regard to fixation of fares by airlines, and exploitation by airlines.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the availability of alternative statutory remedies and the lack of specific allegations, stating that judicial review is not concerned with economic policy or price fixation.
Final Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed as misconceived.
Judgment
Gita Mittal, CJ.—PIL No. 27/2015 is a writ petition which stands filed by two residents of Jammu claiming to be public spirited persons who have been espousing issues of public importance at various forums. The petitioner no. 1 states that he was thrice elected the President of Chamber of Commerce and Industries in Jammu, while the petitioner no. 2 is a practicing advocate, who has submitted that he has been agitating for the cause of general public.
2. The writ petition was filed by the petitioners complaining that the pricing of airlines tickets by private airlines is arbitrary; that airlines use differentiated pricings whereby price discrimination is effected and air services are sold at varying prices simultaneously to different segments, to the prejudice of the consumers.
It is contended by the petitioners that the practice which is followed is exploitative.
3. In support of their grievance, reliance is placed on newspaper reports highlighting opinions of Parliamentary panels, the Corporate Affairs Ministry and other persons. The grievance therefore is that passengers are being compelled to pay amounts for air services which are absolutely illogical, irrational and illegal as a result of arbitrary exercise of authority.
4. It is further submitted that the private airlines, who have been arrayed as the respondent nos. 6 to 9, are rendering public service and ought not to be permitted to overcharge.
5. By way PIL No. 27/2015, the petitioners have complained of instances when the flights have been delayed and the passengers have been made to be virtually “illegally confined” as they were not allowed to move from the departure lounges.
6. During the pendency of the above writ petition, one Zulikha Bano, teacher in a private school in Leh has filed writ petition, WPPIL No. 24/2016, complaining that exorbitant air fare for plying to and from Ladakh were charged by the airlines creating tremendous difficulties for the common man of the remote region.
7. This writ petitioner complains that the Ladakh region of the erstwhile State of Jammu and Kashmir remains cut off from the rest of the country for more than seven months in a year on account of harsh weather conditions.
8. In this writ petition also, it was contended that airlines were adopting the unfair practice of sharp increases in the air ticket prices raising it from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- making it difficult for the common man to travel to and from Ladakh.
9. The petitioner complains that despite the grievances expressed by the common people of Ladakh, the respondents were refusing to redress the grievances and were turning a blind eye to the difficulties of the people. The petitioner complains that the respondents are exploiting the isolation and the difficulties faced by the people of border region.
10. In this background, by way of the writ petition filed in public interest, the petitioner has sought issuance of directions to the respondents to subsidize air fare, specially for the local tribal population and to contain the illegal fare practice of unreasonably raising the cost of the tickets. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to bring uniformity in the price of the air tickets by the airlines.
11. In writ petition, WPPIL No. 24/2016, an order was passed on 8th February 2017 directing that this petition be listed along with PIL No. 27/2015.
12. In this background, both the writ petitions have been taken up for consideration and are being heard together.
13. So far as the statutory provisions are concerned, the petitioners have place reliance on Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, which envisages components of tariffs to be levied on the tickets of airplanes.
14. Complaining that there is no accountability in the manner of fixation of air tariff, the petitioners have made the following prayers in the writ petition :
“(i) Issue appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents to submit the details regarding the rationale behind char
