UNION OF INDIA v.

SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2006)

DECEMBER 8, 2009* [Harjit Singh Bedi and J.M. Panchal, JJ.]

2010 (4) SCR  593

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

HARJIT  SINGH  BEDI  J. 1.  This  judgment  will  dispose  of  the  three  appeals before us. The facts relating to these appeals are as under:-

2.1. On 15th October, 2004, one Mr. C.K. Garg, a Senior Advocate in  

Jaipur  wrote a letter  to  Hon'ble Mr.  Justice S.K.  Keshote,  a Judge of  the  

Jaipur  Bench of  the Rajasthan High Court  complaining that  though senior  

citizens were entitled to Airlines tickets on concession, certain conditions had  

been imposed thereon in fact nullified the concessions. The two conditions  

that were complained of by Mr. Garg were:-

(i)  that  the  Airlines  required  that  a  senior  citizen  applying  for  a  

concessional ticket had to do so 7 days in advance of the journey; and

(ii) that the senior citizen was required to stay a minimum of 2 days at the  

outgoing destination in order to be eligible for the return ticket.

It appears that this matter was taken up as a Public Interest Litigation by a  

Division Bench of the High Court and notice was issued to the Airlines i.e. Jet  

Airways  and  the  Indian  Airlines,  to  the  Union  of  India  and  to  the  Indian  

Railways though no relief had been claimed against the last two. On issuance  

of notice several replies were filed by the respondents controverting the pleas  

made by the petitioner and also justifying the imposition of the conditions. It  

was  pointed  out  that  the  conditions  were  justified  on  account  of  the

administrative and financial constraints which went with the concessions and  

as a concession could not be claimed as matter of right, it was open to the  

respondents to impose any condition on the concession so granted. We have  

been told during the course of arguments that some of the conditions which  

had been complained of have in fact been removed subsequently and the  

present  exercise  is  largely  academic  insofar  as  Jet  Airways  is  concerned  

inasmuch  that  the  direction  for  the  tickets  being  booked  seven  days  in  

advance  has  since  been  withdrawn.  The  Division  Bench  by  its  judgment  

dated 9th May, 2005, which has been impugned in the present set of appeals,  

issued  certain  directions  to  Jet  Airways,  Indian  Airlines  and  the  Indian  

Railways with regard to the concessions and extended the scope of the public  

Interest Litigation yet  further on the basis of a news item published in the  

'Dainik Bhaskar' a local Hindi daily newspaper on 2nd March, 2005, reporting  

the death of four children who had been run over by a speeding train and,  

accordingly, issued certain directions pertaining to railway safety as well. The  

Division Bench found that  the condition of  7 days prior  purchase and the  

condition  of  a  stay  two  nights  at  the  outgoing  destination  was,  in  its  

considered opinion, unreasonable. Consequently, the Airlines were directed  

to give concessions to senior citizens without insisting on the twin conditions  

of purchasing tickets 7 days in advance and calling upon them to stay at least  

two nights at the outgoing destination.  

2.2. The question of the Railways was then taken up and it was directed  

that the conditions placed by the Railways with regard to the purchase of  

concessional  tickets at  the Railway ticketing window at  the railway station  

alone  and  restrictions  on  a  change  of  the  class  of  ticket  or  extension  of  

journey etc. were again unjustified and it was directed as under:-

"We are of  the opinion that  Railway should extend the benefit  of  

concession to a senior citizen on changing class of journey, extension of  

journey etc.  irrespective  of  the  fact  whether  the  transaction  occurs  at

railway reservation counter or at the railway ticketing window at railway  

station or in a train during journey"

2.3. As already indicated, certain directions were also given with regard to  

making life safer for those who lived alongside the railway track on the basis  

of the news item published in the 'Dainik Bhaskar'

3.  At  the  very  outset,  Mr.  P.H.  Parekh,  the  learned  senior  counsel  

representing  the  newly  added  respondent—the  Consumer  Education  and  

Research Society has pointed out that the Railway safety matter was already  

pending before another Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No. 162 of 2001  

filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in the case of  Consumer  

Education & Research Centre V. Union of India & Anr.  We are therefore, of  

the opinion that the directions issued by the Division Bench in the impugned  

judgment with regard to the safety measures to be taken by the Railways  

should be left  for  decision by the other  Bench.  We are thus  left  with  the  

question of concessions alone.

4. Mr. S. Wasim A. Qadri, the learned counsel representing the Union of  

India in C.A. No. 4578 of 2006, Mr. U.A. Rana, representing the Jet Airways  

and Mr. K.S. Prasad representing the Indian Airlines in C.A. No. 4580/2006  

have  argued  on  behalf  of  the  appellants  whereas  Mr.  Shankarlal  Soni,  

respondent-in-person in C.A. 4578/2006 and Dr. Manish Singhvi representing  

Mr. C.K Garg, the contesting respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 4580 of 2006,  

have argued on behalf  of  the respondents.  We have also heard Mr.  P.H.  

Parekh,  the  learned senior  counsel  representing  the  Consumer  Education  

and Research Society.

5. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants that  

the judgment of the High Court proceeded on a completely fallacious basis as  

a concession given to senior citizens was with certain conditions and it was  

not for the court to interfere and decide as to what was more appropriate with  

regard of these matters. It has also been pointed out that policy matters were

matters of administrative law and best left to the administration and could not  

be a cause for interference by the court unless they could be said to be totally  

arbitrary or violative of some statute or Law and as the concessions given  

were  on  the  basis  of  the  guidelines  issued  by  the  Airlines,  there  was  

absolutely no justification for the court's interfere in the matter.

6. The learned counsel have also relied upon Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh  

and other v. State of U.P. And Others (2007) 6 SCC 44, BALCO Employees'   

Union (Regd.)  v.  Union of India and Others (2002) 2 333 to support  their  

submissions.

7.  Mr.  Shankar  Lal  Soni,  appearing  in  person  has  raised  several  

preliminary  submissions  challenging  the  very  competence  of  the  appeal  

inasmuch that  the Union of  India was not  authorised to file an appeal  on  

behalf of the Indian Railways; that the High Court had not been impleaded as  

a party and that the ground of the Special Leave petition were vague as the  

prayer clause did not indicate as to the relief claimed from this Court. He has  

also  pointed  out  that  though  directions  had  been  issued  against  the  

Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, the Corporation had not filed a  

Special  Leave  petition  which  effectively  meant  that  it  had  accepted  the  

judgment of the High Court. He has submitted (as held by this Court) in Udai  

Chand v. Shankar Lal and Other (1978) 2 SCC 209 and Taherakhatoon (D)  

by Lrs. v. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635, that it was open to this  

court even revoke the leave granted in a case where no cause for the grant of  

leave had been made out.

8. Dr. Singhvi, the learned counsel for the respondents has also urged  

that it was rather unfair that a concession granted with one hand was being  

taken away by the other and that a duty lay on all citizens of this country to  

ensure a comfortable, happy and healthy life to its senior citizens and any  

condition laid down by the appellants had to stand the test of reasonableness  

and in this view of the matter there was no error in the order of the High

Court. Mr. Parekh has further pointed out that subsequent to the judgment of  

the High Court the Airlines as well as the Railways had waived some of the  

conditions which had been challenged by the writ petitioner respondents and  

the matter was, therefore, largely academic at this stage.

9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at very great length  

and gone through the record that their assistance. It cannot for a moment be  

doubted that  a concession granted by a carrier  be it  the Railways or  the  

Airlines  or  the  Road  Transport  Corporation  is  a  concession  only  and  no  

person is entitled to the insist that the concession should be with conditions  

determined by that person. It has no been disputed before us that it would be  

open to the authorities to withdraw the concessions altogether and in some  

cases, we are told such, as in the case of Jet Airways, the concessions given  

to the senior citizens have been modified. Once it is held that no beneficiary  

of a concessions has a right to insist on a particular condition or conditions,  

the  very  basis  for  the  judgment  of  the  High  Court  disappears.  We  have  

quoted from the operative portions of the High Court judgment and find that  

no reasons have been given as to why the Court  found that  some of  the  

conditions imposed were not justified. It appears that the courts proceeded  

only on the basis of its subjective satisfaction to arrive at the conclusion that  

the conditions were not to the benefit  of  senior citizens ignoring the basis  

nature  of  a  concession  given  on  the  basis  of  administrative  policy  and  

ignoring the effect that they could have on the concessionaries.

10. Mr. Prasad has referred us to the reply filed by the Indian Airlines  

before  the  High  Court  pointing  to  the  financial  impact  of  the  grant  of  

concessions to senior citizens for the years 2001 to 2003-2004. The facts are  

indeed revealing:-

Year Financial Impact (Rs.  In  

Crores)

2000-2001 37.97

2001-2002 39.38

2002-2003 43.07

2003-2004 25.39

The figures pertaining to other Airlines have not been provided but we can  

safely assume that they too would result in substantial loss to them as well.  

We have also gone through the judgment cited by the learned counsel. The  

basis issue that has been decided in these cases is that it is not for the Court,  

be it the High Court or the Supreme Court, to interfere in matter of policy as  

that  is  a  decision for  the administrators  on an examination of  the various  

facets before them and the inputs they receive from various sources. In Ram  

Singh Vijay Pal Singh And Others  (Supra) this Court quoted with approval  

from the judgment in  Netai Bag v. State of W.B.  (2000) 8 SCC 262 in the  

following words:  

12. In Netai Bag v. State of W.B.1 this Court held as under in para 20 of  

the Report: (SCC p. 275)

"20 The Government is entitled to make pragmatic adjustment and policy  

decision  which  may  be  necessary  or  called  for  under  the  prevalent  

peculiar circumstances. The court cannot strike down a policy decision  

taken by the Government merely because it feels that another decision  

would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or logical. In  State of  

M.P.  v.  Nandlal  Jaiswal2 it  was  held  that  the  policy  decision  can  be  

interfered with by the Court only if such decision is shown to be patently  

arbitrary,  discriminatory or  mala fide.  In  the matter  of  different  modes,  

under the rule of general application made under the M.P. Excise Act, the  

court found that the four different modes, namely, tender, auction, fixed  

licence fee or such other manner were alternative to one another and any  

one of them could be resorted to."

11.  The  Court  also  relied  on  the  judgment  of  this  court  in  BALCO  

Employees Union's case and observed:-

"In  the  well-known case  of  BALCO Employees'  Union  (Regd.)  v.   

Union of India3 a three—Judge Bench summarised the law on the point  

as under: (SCC p. 335c-f)

In a democracy, it is the prerogative of each elected Government to  

follow its own policy. Often a change in Government may results in the  

shift in focus or change in economic policies. Any such change may result  

in  adversely  affecting  some  vested  interests.  Unless  any  illegality  is  

committed in the execution of the policy or the same is contrary to law or  

mala fide, a decision bringing about change cannot per se be interfered  

with  by the court.  It  is neither  within  the domain of the courts nor the  

scope of the judicial review to embark upon an enquiry as to whether a  

particular  public  policy  is  wise  or  whether  better  public  policy  can  be  

evolved. Nor are the courts inclined to strike down a policy at the behest  

of a petitioner merely because it has been urged that a different policy  

would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical.

Wisdom  and  advisability  of  economic  policies  are  ordinarily  not  

amenable to judicial review unless it can be demonstrated that the policy  

is contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution. In other words, it  

is not for then courts to consider whether a wiser or better one can be  

evolved.  In  matters  relating  to  economic issues,  the Government  has,  

while taking a decision, right to 'trial and error' as long as both trial and  

error  are  bona  fide  and  within  limits  of  authority.  For  testing  the  

correctness of a policy the appropriate forum is parliament and not the  

courts"  

and finally concluded:-

"16 The Writ petitioners have absolutely no legal right to claim that  

the shopes, godowns or sheds be transferred to them on hire-purchase

basis In these circumstances at all be granted and the write petition was  

rightly dismissed."  

12. The very basis of this judgment is that a decision to grant a certain  

concession or a certain benefit and the conditions for their grant are a matter  

for the administrators alone and the court should not interfere in the matter on  

the premise that it was of the opinion that some of the conditions imposed  

were not justified. A concession based on an administrative decision de hors  

a statue as in this case stands on a yet weaker footing.

13. Mr. Shankar Lal Soni has emphasised that the Special Leave petition  

at the instance of the Union of India was not maintainable. We find absolutely  

no merit in this plea for the simple reason that as a Party before the High  

Court it was open to the Union of India to file a Special Leave petition in the  

matter. Likewise, We find absolutely no justification as to why the leave which  

has already been granted by this Court should be revoked as we are of the  

opinion that the impugned judgment was palpably unjustified and erroneous.  

Mr. Soni has not seriously come to the merits of the case and has raised  

technical pleas which, in the case of a public Interest Litigation, initiated by  

the court on the basis of a newspaper report , are untenable. He not been  

able  to  point  out  any  material  circumstance  which  could  justify  the  

maintenance of the impugned judgment.

14. As already indicated above, Dr. Singhvi has emphasised on the duty  

cast on all of us to ensure a comfortable and happy life to senior citizens.  

There can be no doubt as to this obligation but in such matters emotion and  

passion cannot from the basis for decisions. As already noted at the very  

beginning, certain directions had been issued by the Division Bench of the  

High Court in the impugned judgment with regard to the safety measures that  

should be taken by the Railway Administration. In the light of the fact that this  

matter is already before another Bench, We make no comment and leave it  

for decision of that Bench. Insofar the present appeals are concerned, the

judgment  of  the  High  Court  is  completely  unsustainable  We,  accordingly,  

allow the appeals, set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the  

writ petitions.

15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.