J&K HC Dismisses Plea Complaining Of Arbitrary Pricing Of Air Tickets By Private Airlines [Read Judgment]

The Jammu & Kashmir High Court recently dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) complaining that "the pricing of airlines tickets by private airlines is arbitrary; that airlines use differentiated pricings whereby the price discrimination is effected and air services are sold at varying prices simultaneously to different segments, to the prejudice of the consumers."A Bench comprising of Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that it is trite that judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy or price fixation.The bench further said,"It is not open to a writ court to supplant its views with those taken by the private bodies over which, as herein, the private airlines whose actions are being challenged."The Background of the caseThe present petition was filed by two residents of Jammu. The petitioner no. 1 was thrice elected the President of Chamber of Commerce and Industries in Jammu, while the petitioner no. 2 is a practicing advocate.In support of their grievance, reliance was placed on newspaper reports highlighting opinions of Parliamentary panels, the Corporate Affairs Ministry and other persons.The grievance, therefore, was that passengers are being compelled to pay amounts for air services which are absolutely illogical, irrational and illegal as a result of arbitrary exercise of authority.Significantly, during the pendency of the above writ petition, one Zulikha Bano, teacher in a private school in Leh also filed a writ petition (WPPIL No. 24/2016), complaining that exorbitant airfare for plying to and from Ladakh were charged by the airlines creating tremendous difficulties for the common man of the remote region.This writ petitioner (Zulikha Bano) contended that airlines were adopting the unfair practice of sharp increases in the air ticket prices raising it from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 35,000/- making it difficult for the common man to travel to and from Ladakh.In this background, by way of the writ petition filed in the public interest, the petitioners sought for "issuance of directions to the respondents to subsidize airfare, especially for the local tribal population and to contain the illegal fare practice of unreasonably raising the cost of the tickets. The petitioner also prayed for a direction to the respondents to bring uniformity in the price of the air tickets by the airlines."Notably, in the writ petition, WPPIL No. 24/2016, an order was passed on 8th February 2017 directing that this petition be listed along with PIL No. 27/2015. In this background, both the writ petitions were taken up for consideration and were heard together.The Court's order in WP (C) no. 26/2013It may be noted that a similar grievance was made by the writ petitioner, by way of WP (C) no. 26/2013, which was disposed of by an order dated 1st April 2015 with the liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Director General, Civil Aviation regarding their grievance.The petitioners stated that the said representation was made. However, the grievance was neither considered nor redressed, necessitating the present writ petitionIn response to this, the Ministry of Civil Aviation stated before the court that the Ministry considered the representation of the petitioner and disposed of the same (in July 2015) with the observation that "in case the petitioner was not satisfied with the said order, he may file an appeal with the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation as per Rule 3 (B) of Aircraft Rules, 1937."Consequently, the High Court came to the conclusion that the petitioners were informed of the availability of the remedy of an appeal in terms of Rule 3 (B) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 in the Ministry's order dated July 2015, as above. However, the petitioners did not file such an appeal.To this, the court said,"Clearly the instant writ petition is not maintainable as the petitioners have an efficacious alternative remedy available to them."Final observations of the High CourtWhile referring to the Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another v. Cyanamide India Ltd. and another etc. (1987) 2 SCC 720 , the bench observed,"It is well settled that price fixation is not the function of the court and only a limited examination as to whether the authority fixing the prices had considered the relevant factors, can be conducted."[Note: In the aforesaid Judgment, the Supreme Court had laid down the scope of permissible inquiry by a court into the issues of price fixation.]In the present case, the bench also observed that the Counsel appearing for the petitioners was unable to point out the violation of any statutory provisions or any delegated legislation or even of any binding circular by the Government or by the Director-General of Civil Aviation.Further, the bench remarked,"The Director-General of Civil Aviation has no power on the economic regulations of civil aviation and air transport services, including the approval, disapproval or revision of...

J&K HC Dismisses Plea Complaining Of Arbitrary Pricing Of Air Tickets By Private Airlines [Read Judgment]

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags