Sh. Rajiv (Jolly) Khosla vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 1644 Del

$~23
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     W.P.(C) 2281/2013
      SH. RAJIV (JOLLY) KHOSLA                  ..... Petitioner
                     Through: Mr Madhu Sudan Bhayana, Adv.

                    Versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                    ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr Himanshu Bajaj, Adv for Respondents 1
                    and 2

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
                          ORDER

% 10.04.2013

This is a petition filed by the Secretary General of National Panthers Party

Delhi Pradesh, seeking a direction to the respondents to provide adequate

concession to the students studying in schools, colleges and vocational institutes in

Delhi while travelling on the network of respondent No. 5--Delhi Metro Rail

Corporation (DMRC). In support of the petition, the petitioner is relying upon

Articles 39(a) (b) and (d), 41, 42, 43 and 45 of the Constitution of India. This is

also the case of the petitioner that Ministry of Railways is granting 60% concession

to the students in Kolkata Metro.

2. A perusal of the letter dated 21.02.2013 sent by DMRC to the petitioner

would show that the aforesaid request has already been rejected on

W.P.(C) 2281/2013 page 1 of 3 the ground that fares of DMRC are fixed by the Fare Fixation Committee

constituted by the Central Government in terms of the Delhi Metro Railway

Operation & Maintenance Act and the said recommendations are binding on Metro

Railway Administration. No discount for any individual or specific group for

travel on DMRC system has been approved by the Committee.

3. Though the aforesaid letter dated 21.02.2013 had been received by the

petitioner much before he filed this petition, there is no challenge to the aforesaid

letter in the writ petition. The case of the DMRC is that the fares are fixed by the

Fare Fixation Committee constituted by Central Government is statutorily binding

upon it and the fares so fixed do not provide for any concessional travel for the

students. However, the petitioner has chosen not to challenge the fares fixed by

the Fare Fixation Committee constituted by the Central Government. In the

absence of any challenge to the aforesaid fares and consequent letter of DMRC

dated 21.02.2013, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner.

Even otherwise, if DMRC provides concession to the students, travelling on

its network, it will have to find out alternative means to meet the shortfall, which it

will have in its revenues on account of extending such a concession to the students,

and in the absence of any subsidy from the Government, the only option left with

DMRC would be to increase its fares

W.P.(C) 2281/2013 page 2 of 3 for the common public. If such a course of action is to be adopted, the consequence would be that other sections of the society, who travel on Delhi Metro

Rails, will have to bear the burden of concession to the students travelling on the

said network. We, therefore, find no justification to give such a direction to

DMRC.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Indian Railways

has provided concession to the students travelling on Kolkata Metro as would be

evident from the letter dated 24.07.2009 filed with the writ petition. Admittedly,

Kolkata Metro is run by Indian Railways and not by a company such as DMRC.

The students travelling on the network of DMRC are not entitled to concession

merely because Indian Railways has chosen to give concession to the students

travelling on its Kolkata Metro network.

For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the petition and the

same is hereby dismissed.

                                                          CHIEF JUSTICE



                                                          V.K. JAIN, J
APRIL 10, 2013
BG

W.P.(C) 2281/2013                                                 page 3 of 3