Dismissed

Shri. Chetan S. Trivedi v. the Union of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), India, through Chairman and Anr.

Bombay HC25 Feb 2015PIL/123/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In PIL 123 of 2013, petitioners challenged a notification allowing Railway Travel Service Agents to operate at railway stations, imposing extra charges. The Court found the policy adopted under 1985 Rules to address acute booking counter difficulties and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Shri. Chetan S. Trivedi Vs the Union of India… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

pil.123-2013

Dond

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.123 OF 2013

¶6

Shri Chetan S. Trivedi ..Petitioner Vs.

¶7

The Union of India & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶8

Mr. Prashant Gavali a/w Mr. Prashant S. Bhavake for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar for U.O.I.

¶9

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL &

¶10

A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶11

DATE : 25^th February 2015. P.C.

¶12

1 The Petitioner submits that under the Scheme known as

¶13

“Railway Travel Service Agents” under the Rail Travellers' Service Agents

¶14

(Amendments) Rules, 1985, the Agents were provided space in the railway

¶15

station premises for issuance for rail-tickets. The grievance is that such agents shall not be provided space in the railway station premises. The agents charge Rs.20/- to Rs.30/- extra per person compare to the tariff charged at the railway counters by the railway staff.

¶16

2 The learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the railway authorities shall not promote such agents who charge Rs.20 to Rs.30 per person extra.

¶17

¶18

pil.123-2013

¶19

3 The learned Counsel appearing for the Railways submitted

¶20

that this policy was being implemented considering the acute condition and difficulties faced by the railway travellers at specific railway stations as prescribed under Rules of 1985. He submits that this practice is for benefits of the general public.

¶21

4 We have perused the Rules, 1985 and communication dated 14^th October 1998 made by the Executive Director, Passenger Amenities. The policy is enforced in the year 1985. From the record, it is reflected that this scheme was implemented considering the acute condition at railwaybooking counters at New Delhi, Old Delhi stations including condition prevailing in Mumbai, Madras and Hawra railway-stations.

¶22

5 Considering the fact that the policy is being implemented since last so many years, and considering acute conditions and difficulties faced by the general public, we are not inclined to exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to entertain this petition. The Petitioner has not challenged the Scheme framed under Rules 1985.

¶23

6 The Petition is dismissed.

¶24

(A.S. GADKARI, J.) (NARESH H. PATIL, J.)

¶25

¶26

pil.123-2013

Shri. Chetan S. Trivedi v. the Union of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), India, through Chairman and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Shri. Chetan S. Trivedi v. the Union of India, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), India, through Chairman and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Uttam Manohar Kachre Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Manubhai Paragji Vashi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Vikas Madhukar Ambade Vs District Collector, Raigad and Ors.

Prakash Bhimrao Pingal and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra

Giridhar Chaturvedi Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Anil Gajanan Bhagat Vs State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Dept and Ors.

Mr. Swapnil a. Bagul and Anr. Vs M/S. Shishu Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Rahim Ahmed Khan MD Masood Ahmed Khan Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Jitendra Ramanath Sangle Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Ministry of Corporation, Marketing and Textile and Ors.

Mr. Eknath Zendu Patil Vs Union of India and Ors.

Mali Anusaya Baban and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, Tribal Development Dept. and Ors.

Ms. Julekha Dawood Mutwalli and Anr. Vs Mr. Rajendra Mangrulkar, Secretary M.P.S.C. and Anr.

Ms. Julekha Dawood Mutwalli and Anr. Vs Mr. Rajendra Mangrulkar, Secretary M.P.S.C. and Anr.

Maharashtra Rajjya Hastakala Karyanubhav Shikshak Kruti Samiti, Though Its Founder/Chairman and Ors. Vs State of Maharashtra, Thorugh Secretray and Ors.