Petitioner challenged metro fares fixed by a statutory committee as arbitrary. Court declined to entertain the writ involving intricate factual questions, directing respondents to treat the petition as a representation instead.
Directed respondents to treat the writ petition as a representation and take a view thereon.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision : 14th November, 2017
AMER VAID ..... Petitioner
Through : Petitioner in person
versus
GOVERNMENT OF DELHI AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Sanjoy Ghose, ASCGNCTD/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
W.P.(C)No.9995/2017 Page 1 of 2
distance zones complaining that the fixation is arbitrary and discriminatory.
Dasti to parties.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
NOVEMBER 14, 2017/ kr
W.P.(C)No.9995/2017 Page 2 of 2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether this court can entertain a writ petition challenging fare fixation by a statutory committee without prior representation.
Whether the petitioner's grievance regarding arbitrary distance zones warrants judicial intervention in an intra-departmental matter.
Amer Vaid
Government of Delhi
Gita Mittal
C. Hari Shankar
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
