Delhi High Court : In a matter of two Public Interest Litigations (PILs) being heard together to seek a direction for the Union of India to frame guidelines for putting a cap on airfares, a Division Bench comprising of Manmohan, ACJ.* and Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J. rejected the same while stating that the petitioners had failed to substantiate their claims through any corroborative documents as evidence.
Background
The Petitioners seek direction for the Union of India to frame guidelines for putting a cap on airfares so that the practice of charging arbitrary, irrational, and exorbitant airfares for flights by private airlines can be dissolved.
One of the PILs stated that there was a spike in prices during the restriction of vehicular movement and other emergencies in the Country which made it seem like the airlines were cashing in on the helplessness of the travellers. Whereas the other PIL stated that, the mechanism of refund by the airlines in case of cancellation is not robust, and that the petitioner himself was a sufferer of the same.
The respondent-Directorate General of Civil Aviation ( ‘DGCA’) replied to the contentions by stating that the airlines are required to establish a reasonable tariff under the provisions of Rule 135(1) of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 after accounting for all relevant factors such as cost of operation, characteristics of service, reasonable profit and the prevailing tariff. It was also mentioned that there was no provision under Rule 135 which entitled the respondent to enforce fare capping.
Analysis and Decision
After hearing the contention of the parties, the Court opined that no directions, as prayed for in the PILs, were required to be passed. The Court stated that the contents of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent evidenced that the airfare pricing by the private airlines was not unchecked and was regulated by the respondent in accordance with the Aircraft Rules, 1937.
The Court stated that Rule 135(4) empowers the DGCA to issue directions to airlines if it is satisfied that the airlines have charged excessive or predatory airfares. Thus, the Court noted that there was already a legal regime in place to ensure that airfares are affordable, and in case of any violation, the DGCA could take action against the said airline.
The Court also analysed that the petitioners did not substantiate their grievance with respect to incidents of spiked airfares with any corroborative documents and had placed reliance upon newspaper articles. Thus, the Court said that due to the absence of any evidence of over-charging and violation of the Aircraft Rules, 1937, there was no reason to believe that DGCA had failed in its duty to check the violation of the statutory rules.
Further, the Court stated that in an appropriate matter, upon proof of a high tariff charge, the aggrieved passenger would have a right to approach the appropriate forum for action against the erring airline. However, the Court also mentioned that it was not inclined to direct the respondent to fix and regulate the airfares of private airlines as a matter of norm.
While dismissing the PILs, the Court stated that the petitioners did not showcase any grounds for the Court to interfere in the policy change that took place in 1994 when a conscious shift was made from a regulated regime to deregulation when the legislature repealed the Air Corporations Act, 1953.
[Amit Sahni v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3687, Decided on 15-05-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Acting Chief Justice Manmohan
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioners — Advocate Amit Sahni, Advocate Ankur, Advocate Parth Sharma, Advocate Vaibhav Mishra, Advocate Kanupriya Mehta, Advocate Sonali Tiwari, Advocate Shashank Deo Sudhi, Advocate Aru Prakash
For Respondents — Advocate Anjana Gosain, Advocate Nippun Sharma
