Vibhas Kumar Jha vs Union Of India
2014 Latest Caselaw 3102 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 15th July, 2014

+                               W.P.(C) 3825/2013

       VIBHAS KUMAR JHA                                      ..... Petitioner
                   Through:           Petitioner-in-person with Mr. Vibudh
                                      Singh, Advocate.

                                Versus

    UNION OF INDIA                           .........Respondent
                  Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleges

discrimination by the respondent Railways between the wait-listed

passengers who have purchased e-tickets through the internet and the wait-

listed passengers who have purchased tickets in the physical form from the

Reservation Counters of the respondent Railways. It is contended that while

the wait-listed passengers holding e-tickets are prohibited from boarding the

train, the wait-listed passengers holding tickets in the physical form are

entitled to board the train and take a chance of occupying any seats / berths

available owing to „no-show‟ of the passengers in whose name the

confirmed booking exists.

2. Attributing the said discrimination to Rule 2.11.1 d & e of

Commercial Circular No.36 of 2011 dated 7th July, 2011 and titled

"Introduction of e-ticketing and ticketing through mobile phone on Web

Portal of Indian Railways" issued by the Railway Board and which prohibits

fully wait-listed passengers holding e-tickets from boarding the train and for

automatic cancellation of such tickets and refund of the amount received

therefor to the account of the user, relief of, declaration of the same as ultra

vires and quashing of the same besides a direction for allowing the wait-

listed passengers holding e-ticket to also so board the train, is sought.

3. Notice of the petition was issued and counter affidavit has been filed

by the respondent Railways, to which rejoinder has been filed by the

petitioner. We have heard the counsels for the parties and have also perused

the material on record. We may record that though the petition is long-

winded, without much clarity, but the aforesaid is the crux thereof.

4. The respondent Railways in the counter affidavit has denied any such

discrimination and has rather contended that even the wait-listed passengers

holding tickets in the physical form are not entitled to board the train. It is

explained that unreserved tickets for sleeper and three tier classes can be

obtained and persons holding such tickets can approach the Onboard Ticket

Checking Staff who can allow them to board the train subject to availability

of accommodation and on payment of necessary charges and to the said

extent a wait-listed passenger holding ticket in the physical form can board

a train subject to availability of accommodation but e-ticket wait-listed

passenger cannot travel.

5. Inspite of our repeated asking, the counsel for the petitioner was

unable to show to us any Rule / Regulation or provision which entitles a

wait-listed passenger holding ticket in the physical form to so board the

train. Section 155 of The Railways Act, 1989 prohibits any passenger from

entering a compartment wherein no berth or seat has been reserved for his

use and provides for his removal and punishment for the same. The same

does not make any distinction between a passenger holding e-ticket and a

passenger holding ticket in the physical form. Once the counsel for the

petitioner is unable to show that a wait-listed passenger holding ticket in the

physical form is entitled to so board the train, the question of the wait-listed

passenger holding e-ticket being discriminated, owing to the prohibition

contained in the impugned Circular from boarding the train, does not arise.

6. However notwithstanding the aforesaid, what emerges from the

reading of the pleadings is that while fully wait-listed e-ticket, upon being

not confirmed, is automatically cancelled on preparation of the "final chart"

before the departure time of train, the wait-listed ticket in the physical form

though also not confirmed, is required to be presented at the Reservation

Counter of the respondent Railways for cancellation. Thus, the wait-listed

ticket in the physical form, as distinct from e-ticket which is automatically

cancelled, continues to exist, even if not confirmed on preparation of the

"final chart". The passenger holding ticket in the physical form is thus able

to board the train and take a chance to occupy any seat / berth remaining

available owing to „no-show‟ as aforesaid; he / she will however be de-

boarded if no seat / berth is still available. Such a passenger is thus taking a

risk / chance of being de-boarded at a distant station unless of course the

train has an unreserved compartment and the passenger opts to travel in the

same.

7. In our opinion, the mere fact that the passenger holding a ticket in the

physical form is entitled to take such a chance even though not entitled

under the Rules & Regulations to do so, would not make out a case for

discrimination. Such possibility has emerged from the difference in the

nature of e-ticket and ticket in the physical form. No case of discrimination

can be said to have been made out.

8. During the hearing we were also informed from the data collected by

the petitioner through the medium of Right to Information Act, 2005 that no

refund is obtained of a large number of wait-listed tickets issued in the

physical form. Therefrom it is sought to be pointed out that the number of

wait-listed passengers holding tickets in the physical form so boarding the

train and travelling is large. It is argued that the passengers holding e-tickets

are deprived of such an opportunity.

9. Such a possibility, in our view, cannot be ruled out.

10. The counsel for the respondent Railways has also argued that one of

the objectives of introducing e-ticketing is to do away with the menace of

blocking tickets to make the seat / berth subsequently available to wait-

listed passengers.

11. To the said extent, the wait-listed passengers holding e-ticket are

certainly at a disadvantage.

12. We thus direct the respondent Railways to, within a period of six

months from today, consider the matter in the perspective discussed above

and to devise ways and means for preventing the practise, if any in vogue of

the touts / unscrupulous elements for their own gain blocking the seats /

berths by making reservation therefor in bogus names and then making such

seats / berths available to bona fide passengers willing to pay premium, by

allowing them to board the train on the basis of wait-listed tickets in

physical form and occupy the seats / berths of the bogus reservation. One

suggestion which comes to our mind is, to give an option to passengers

purchasing e-ticket, to not have their tickets cancelled automatically at the

time of preparation of the final chart before departure of the train and to if

so desire take a chance by going to the Railway Station and availing of the

seats / berths of the passengers holding reservation and who fail to show up.

In doing so, the waitlist can be followed and the practise aforesaid curtailed.

13. With the aforesaid direction the petition is disposed of.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE JULY 15, 2014 pp