Amer Vaid vs Government Of Delhi And Ors.
2017 Latest Caselaw 6447 Del

$~21
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                       W.P.(C)No.9995/2017

%                            Date of decision : 14th November, 2017

AMER VAID                                           ..... Petitioner
                          Through :   Petitioner in person

                          versus

GOVERNMENT OF DELHI AND ORS.         ..... Respondents
                 Through : Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASC-
                           GNCTD/R-1 with Ms. Urvi
                           Mohan, Adv.
                           Mr. Kirtiman Singh and
                           Mr. Momin Khan, Advs. for
                           R-2/UOI
                           Mr. Manvendra Verma, Adv.
                           for R-3/DMRC
    CORAM:
    HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR

                      JUDGMENT (ORAL)

GITA MITTAL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

1. This writ petition seeks issuance of a writ to quash the metro fares recommended by the Fare Fixation Committee, constituted under the provision of Section 34 of the Delhi Metro Rail (Operation & Maintenance) Act, 2002. There is no dispute that the metro rail has enforced the recommendations. The petitioner has sought directions to the DMRC to re-evaluate the fares on the basis of introducing more

distance zones complaining that the fixation is arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. Given the fact that the DMRC has implemented the recommendations of a statutorily appointed committee, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. Furthermore, the writ petition urges questions of fact regarding the distance and fares which an expert committee has assessed and this court does not have the jurisdiction to go into such intricate questions of fact. It is more important to know that the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition without making any representation to the respondents.

3. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and to take a view thereon.

Dasti to parties.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

C.HARI SHANKAR, J NOVEMBER 14, 2017/kr