Two PILs sought capping of private airline airfares and robust refund mechanisms. The Court held that Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 already empowers DGCA to act against excessive or predatory fares, that the petitioners produced no proof of overcharging, and declined to disturb the post-1994 deregulated pricing regime.
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.
$~8 and 9
Through: Mr. Amit Sahni. Mr. Ankur, Mr. Parth Sharma, Mr. Vaibhav Mishra, Ms. Kanupriya Mehta and Ms. Sonali Tiwari, Advocates
versus
MR. BEJON KUMAR MISRA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Shashank Deo Sudhi and Mr. Aru Prakash, Advocates (through VC)
versus
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, ACJ : (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:03:17
W.P.(C) 8845/2016 and W.P.(C) 4958/2018 Page 1 of 5
guidelines for putting a cap on airfares so as to prevent the private airlines from charging arbitrary, irrational and exorbitant airfares for the flights.
3.1. He states that in these circumstances, the Petitioner filed an RTI application seeking information from Respondents, however, the Union of India replied that it does not exercise any control over the airfare. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4958/2018 states that in addition, it has also come to his attention that the mechanism of refund by airlines in case of cancellation is not robust. He states that after Jet Airways cancelled one of his flights, the Petitioner herein lost all the monies paid for the advance booking and attempts made for a refund with Respondent, Directorate General of Civil Aviation (‘DGCA’), have not borne any results.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:03:17
W.P.(C) 8845/2016 and W.P.(C) 4958/2018 Page 2 of 5
offered by airlines including the lowest and highest fare in the fare bucket. She states that so long as the fare charged by the airline does not exceed the fare bucket established and displayed on their website, the airlines are compliant with the regulatory provision of Rule 135(2). She states that there is no provision under Rule 135, which entitles DGCA or Union of India to enforce capping of fare.
5.1. She states that with the repeal of Air Corporation Act, 1953, the requirement for airline tariff approval or amendment by the Government has been dispensed with. She states that while the Government no longer regulates the fare that is charged, it ensures that considerable information is provided to the public in a transparent manner with respect to airline fares on the website of the airline.
5.2. She states that the assertions in the petition as regards manifold increase in the airfare during the affected period of agitation are not substantiated with either the boarding pass or proof of invoice of the ticket price. She states that the allegations of unlawful and discriminatory airfares have not been substantiated vis-à-vis the applicable tariff regulation.
5.3. She states that in fact in a petition filed before the Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) by a complainant seeking similar direction to DGCA to fix fares, the CCI vide order dated 6th March, 2013 held that no such directions can be issued by CCI to DGCA.
5.4. She states that the airfares are determined by the forces of demand and supply and relies upon the contents of her counter affidavit to explain the lean season period and the high season period in the airfares. She states that the airline sector works on dynamic pricing which relies on various factors including the day of the week, time of the day, number of days
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:03:17
W.P.(C) 8845/2016 and W.P.(C) 4958/2018 Page 3 of 5
before the flight and many such factors. She states dynamic pricing plays a crucial role in determining how airlines improve their revenue per flight. She states that the airlines have to fly a scheduled flight even if it has only three passengers on board and therefore, the presumption that all flights are fully booked is a misnomer.
5.5. She states that as regards the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 4958/2018, his application for refund of monies paid to Jet Airways cannot be maintained before DGCA. She states that the Petitioner will have to approach the appropriate forum for a refund of the amount especially since the said airline has closed business.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:03:17
W.P.(C) 8845/2016 and W.P.(C) 4958/2018 Page 4 of 5
violation of the applicable Aircraft Rules, 1937, there is no reason to conclude that Respondent-DGCA has failed to check the violation of the statutory rules by the airlines.
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
MAY 15, 2024/rhc/aa
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:Hemant Pratap Singh Signing Da te:1 8.05.2024 18:03:17
W.P.(C) 8845/2016 and W.P.(C) 4958/2018 Page 5 of 5
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court should direct framing of guidelines to cap airfares charged by private airlines.
Whether DGCA has failed to regulate excessive airfares and airline refunds under the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
5 provisions across 2 enactments
Amit Sahni
Union of India
Bejon Kumar Misra
Manmohan
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
