The Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking 75% railway fare concession. The court held the petition was not maintainable as it involved no statutory violation and appeared to be a publicity-oriented PIL.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 19.09.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
WP.No.27816/2019
A.Syed Kaleesha .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Room 256-A, Rail Bhawan
Raisina Road, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Chairman
Railway Board
Room 256-A, Rail Bhawan
Raisina Road, New Delhi 110 001.
.. Respondents
Prayer:Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant 75% concession in the railway fair to all those who have enrolled as advocates.
For Petitioner : Mr.A.Syed Kaleesha Party-in-person
For Respondents: Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,]
has published a list of different categories of persons granted concession on Indian Railways and drawn the attention of this Court to page No.1 of the Typed set of documents and would submit that as many as 50 categories have enumerated for availing the concession which include Artistes-for performance and they have been granted 75% in II Class Sleeper ; 50% concession in First Class, AC Chair Car, AC 3-tier ; AC 2-tier and 50% in Rajdhani / Shatabdi / Jan Shatabdi, AC Chair Car, AC 3-tier and AC 2 – tier ; whereas, the lawyers who espouse the cause of the public and also one of the important pillars of the Democracy, have not been granted any concession at all. The petitioner, in this regard, has submitted a representation dated 10.08.2019 to the 1st respondent and despite receipt and acknowledgment, no response is forth coming and therefore, came forward to file the present writ petition as Public Interest Litigation.
2/3
(8)This Court can also take judicial notice of the fact that
this Country is slowly moving from ''subsidy/concession
Era'' and endeavour is being made by the policy makers to
withdraw the concessions / subsidies and however, the
petitioner/party-in-person, under the garb of this Public
Interest Litigation, wants the extension of concession by
the Railway Administration in favour of lawyers. As already
pointed out, in the absence of any statutory violation or
infraction of statutory duty cast upon the concerned
officials of the respondents, the petitioner/party-in-person
cannot maintain this writ petition.
(9)Therefore, the writ petition stands dismissed at the
admission stage itself. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1.The Secretary
Ministry of Railways
Room 256-A, Rail Bhawan
Raisina Road, New Delhi 110 001.
2.The Chairman
Railway Board
Room 256-A, Rail Bhawan
Raisina Road, New Delhi 110 001.
+1cc to Mr.A.Syed Kaleesha, Advocate sr.80471
+1cc to Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, Advocate sr.80959
WP.No.27816/2019
gp(co) nr 23/10/2019
3/3
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition filed by a lawyer seeking 75% railway fare concession as a Public Interest Litigation is maintainable in the absence of statutory violation.
Whether the petitioner has satisfied the court regarding the nature of relief sought in a PIL filed by an individual lawyer versus a public wrong.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttaranchal Vs. Balwant Singh Chaufal and OthersReferred¶20
2010 [3] SCC 402 · Who else cites this
Holicow Pictures Pvt Ltd Vs. Prem Chandra Misra and OthersReferred¶23
2008 [1] MLJ 1075 [SC]
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Syed Kaleesha
The Secretary, Ministry of Railways
The Chairman, Railway Board
M. Sathyanarayanan
N. Seshasayee
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
