Karnataka High Court
Sri Sanath Kumar Shetty vs The Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation ... on 1 April, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
WP No. 9077 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
WRIT PETITION NO. 9077 OF 2025 (GM-RES-PIL)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
S/O. LATE SRI NAGAYYA SHETTY,
NO. 736, 7TH MAIN,
BCCHS LAYOUT,
VAJARAHALLI,
KANAKAPURA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 109.
2. SMT. CHAITHANYA SUBRAHMANYA
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
Digitally signed
W/O. SRI SUBRAHMANYA KODIPADI
by VALLI SUNBEAM 2132, SOBHA HILLVIEW
MARIMUTHU OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF THALAGHATTAPURA
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 109.
3. MR. CHETAN GANIGER,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
S/O. DR. IRAPPA GANIGER,
R/AT NO.305, TOWEL 2,
HARA VIJAYA HEIGHTS,
VISL LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 109.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
WP No. 9077 of 2025
AND:
1. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL
CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL)
REPRESENTED BY
ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
BMRCL HEAD OFFICE,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
2. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY,
MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS,
NIRMAN BHAWAN,
NEW DELHI.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT
No.1 TO REASSESS THE FARE FIXATION AFTER OBTAINING A
REPORT ON THE FARE INCREASE FROM A COMMITTEE
APPOINTED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT
COMPRISING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE USER PUBLIC AS THE
PRESENT FARE HIKE VIOLATES ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(d), AND 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
WP No. 9077 of 2025
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE
N. V. ANJARIA
and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA)
Heard learned advocate Mr. R.V. Naik for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for
respondent No.3, who appeared to assist the court upon service of
the copy of the petition in advance.
2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the present public interest petition is filed by three
petitioners who happen to be Automobile Engineer, holder of
degree of M.Sc in Microbiology, and Electronics and
Communication Engineer employed in a private firm, respectively.
3. The prayers advanced by the petitioners are to direct
respondent No.1-the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited to
reassess the fare fixation after obtaining the report on the fare
increase from the Committee appointed as per the directions of this
court. The second prayer is to direct the Bangalore Metro Rail
Corporation Limited (BMRCL) not to exceed the fare beyond 25%
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
of the fares prevailing prior to the revision which was effected on
08.02.2025 as initially proposed by the BMRCL.
3.1 It is further prayed to direct respondent No.1 to adhere to the
station-to-station fare fixation mechanism as mandated under
Section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance)
Act, 2002 and to rectify the alleged inconsistencies in fare
determination. Prayer is also made to direct the BMRCL to ensure
compliance under Section 23 of the Act of 2002 by displaying fare
tables at all metro stations in different languages.
4. The plank of submission of the petitioners in seeking grant of
the aforesaid prayers is that earlier, representations were made to
the BMRCL not to increase the existing fares beyond 25%. In this
regard, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the press
release, whereby it was reported that the BMRCL was considering
the fare increase of 15% to 25% since the last revision of 10% to
15% in 2017. It was submitted that now, the increase in the fare
has gone up to 71% which is almost 100%.
4.1 It was, therefore, submitted that the fare increase by the
BMRCL is liable to be frowned upon for two reasons. Firstly, it was
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is in breach of the
principles of promissory estoppel. It was next submitted that in
increasing fare, the BMRCL has acted in contravention of the
doctrine of legitimate expectation. The concept of promissory
estoppel was sought to be explained by learned advocate for the
petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company
Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1979) 2 SCC 409] in
particular, by highlighting that where one party has by his words or
conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise, the said
party is bound to act upon accordingly.
4.2 Another decision also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The
State of Jharkhand and others vs. Brahmputra Metallics
Limited, Ranchi and another, which was Civil Appeal Nos.3860-
3862 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.14156-14158 of 2020)
decided on 01.12.2020, was pressed into service to submit that the
doctrine of legitimate expectation is wider than the concept of
promissory estoppel and that as per the doctrine, the authorities
are expected to honor their own statements.
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
5. The present subject matter of hiking the metro fare is done
under Section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and
Maintenance) Act, 2002.
5.1 Section 33 of the Act of 2002 reads as under,
"33. Fixation of fare for carriage of passengers.-
The metro railway administration shall, from
time to time, on the recommendations made to it
by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted
under sub-section (1) of Section 34, fix, for the
carriage of passengers, fare for travelling from
one station to another of the metro railway:
Provided that the metro railway
administration may fix the fare under this section
without recommending of the Fare Fixation
Committee on the initial opening of the metro
railway."
5.2 Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid Section that the metro
railway administration is empowered to fix the fares from time to
time. The task is performed by the Fare Fixation Committee
constituted under Section 34(1) of the Act of 2002 for carriage of
passengers for travelling from one station to another and for such
purposes. The Proviso contemplates that the railway administration
may fix the fare under this Section even without recommendation of
the Fare Fixation Committee on the initial opening of the metro
railway.
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
5.3 The fare fixation by the railway administration for operation of
the metro rails is therefore a statutory exercise. It is the Fare
Fixation Committee constituted under the law which is entrusted
with the work of fare fixation. Fare Fixation is an expert exercise
where host of considerations would apply including technical and
financial considerations. It is not the domain of the court to delve
into such aspects which are to be better considered by the Fare
Fixation Committee constituted under the statute. The court would
not interject in such decisions unless a statutory infringement is
indicated. Methods of pricing or methods of fare fixation are not
the function of the court.
5.4 The submissions about the breach of promissory estoppel or
negation of doctrine of legitimate expectation hardly have any legs
to stand. There was no promise at any point of time not to increase
the fare. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked
in abstract. Nor the circumstances of the case suggest that there is
any breach of legitimate expectation merely because the
petitioners had made representations that the fare should not be
increased beyond a particular level and that has not been done.
NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB
Methods of pricing or methods of fare fixation are not the function
of the court.
5.5 It is not possible to accept the contention that the action on
part of the respondents amounts to breach of promissory estoppel
or denial of the legitimate expectation. These principles do not
apply in the facts of the case. No case is made out to grant any
relief to the petitioners.
6. The public interest petition and the prayers made therein are
thoroughly misconceived, not liable to be considered and
entertained.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
(N. V. ANJARIA)
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
(K. V. ARAVIND)
JUDGE
DDU
