The court emphasized the need for continued evaluation of ticketing systems to mitigate public hardship.

1. The petitioner is an advocate by profession. This PIL was filed by the PIL petitioner to bring to the notice of this Court, the hardships faced by general people of the State of Assam as they are unable to purchase Tatkal tickets from the Railway Authority in needs of urgency because of non - implementation by the respondent - Railway Authority of Public Accounts Committee (herein after referred to as "PAC") 80 Report 2012-2013 on the Railways as submitted by the then Chairman, PAC. It is the grievance of the PIL petitioner that in spite of 80 PAC Report of 2012-13 having been circulated widely through print media as well as through other various sources of correspondence, the same has not been implemented by the Railway Authorities. The PIL petitioner who is a resident of the District of Kokrajhar, Assam has ventilated his grievances which are faced by the general public of the State due to non - implementation of the recommendation of 80 PAC Report 2012-13.

2. In this matter, Notices were issued as far back as 29.01.2016. Thereafter, the matter has come up before the Court on several dates. On 17.08.2016, the learned counsel for the petitioner was granted two weeks time to file rejoinder, however, no such rejoinder has been filed till date. Thereafter, further time was granted to the petitioner to file rejoinder but the same has not yet been filed.

3. From the Office Note, it is seen that steps on respondent No. 4 as directed by this Court has also not been taken. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.11.2022, the matter was deferred to await for service upon respondent No. 4. On 19.01.2023 none had appeared for the petitioner when the matter was called up and the matter was adjourned for four weeks.

4. Today also when the matter is called up, none had appeared for the petitioner. Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appears for the railways.

5. Since this is a PIL filed by the petitioner who is an advocate, where issues relating to hardships faced by common travellers have been raised, this Court is of the view that the matter should not be dismissed for non - prosecution. Accordingly, we are proceeded to examine the matter on merits.

6. The learned counsels appearing for the Railways and the IRCTC have been heard. The pleadings on records have been perused.

7. The basic grievance of the PIL petitioner is that the respondent No. 3, namely IRCTC, is responsible for selling of Tatkal Tickets at a very high rate from travellers and thereby earning huge revenue. It is contended that the IRCTC is a subsidiary and a group company of the Indian Railways. The PIL petitioner contends that the IRCTC is charging a premium on the E - Ticket price and earning huge profits and provides facility for transacting with the Indian Railways PRS System through the internet. For this facility, service charge is charged over and above the normal ticket price. In addition thereto, if any ticket is booked through IRCTC authorized agent, an extra agent service charge is also levied. That apart, there are a payment gateway charges required to be paid by the travellers / customers for the online payment for purchasing of E - Tickets. It is contended that these service charges are extra burden on the passengers over and above the various charges imposed by the railway rules. It is further contended that where tickets are booked though internet, no concessions are permitted except those for senior citizens. That apart, reservation of tickets with break journey is not allowed for E - Tickets and the maximum number of 10 tickets can be booked per month. It is contended by the PIL petitioner that