LexINDER MAL JAIN & ANR. ETC versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
. A B c D E F G B 1016 INDER MAL JAIN & ANR. EtC . v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ETC. December 8, 1983 (D.A. DBSAI, R.B, MISRA, R~NGANATH MISRA, JJ.J The lndian Railways Act, 1890-Sec. J/4A-Valldity of-Whether u/tra-rlres Art. 1,9(1) (g) of Constitution of lndia. The Railway Tourist Agent Rules, 1980-Va/idity of-Conditl~hs prescri- . bed for becoming authorised agent-Whether arbitra~y, unreasonable and irre/evant--Whether the R1tles ultra vir~s the Act and Art. 19(1) (g) of th' Constituaon. The petitioners who claimed to be carrying on the •business as railway· travel agents and rendering service to the travelling public.in booking U class . seats and berths· in various passanger trains, challenged the validity of sec. 114A of lhe Indian Railways Acl, 1890 as being ultra-vires Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution and also the validity of the Railwey Tourist Agent Rules, 1980 as ultra-vires the Act, and Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitution on the ground that the Rules and the Act placed unreasonable restrictions on the petitioners', right to carry on their lawful business guaranteed by Art. 19(1) (g) of the Constitutiion. The petitioners argued that the conditions· of eligibility prescribed in the Rute·s for obtaining status of authorised agents in their cumulative effect were impossible of compliance and were so deliberately drawn up as to . help and encourage wealthy commercial heavy-weights to -obtain recognition' sim_ultaneously denying the same opportunity to persons like the petitioners who cater to the needs of the. common man. The petitioners urged that railways earn bulk of their revenue from second class travelling passengers and they were the most neglected and to such needy persons, petitioners were affording some respite from standing in queues for hours, to be jostled out by shuttiog the ticket window in their face. It was -Eilso stated that the court should be realistic in taking note of the prevailing corruption in booking railway tickets which would be further accentuated if every intending passeng~r had to stand in the queue for hours and return empty-handed. Dismissing the petitions, but directing th~ Railway Board to prepare an appropriate scheme, HELD : If a privilege is granted to do a certain thing, it would be open to prescribe conditions for enjoying the privilege. The railway administration alone should ordinarily sell its tickets. Sec. 66 of the Act enables the administration to appoint authorised agents for sale of tickets. These autho· JisCd agents must. of necessity fulfil cert~in criteria. The criteria appear to •• )( • ,.., .. lNDER MAL v. UNION (lJesai, J.) 1017 have been devised with an eye on extending facility, to foreign· travellelleri as · well as the financial viabi1lty to &ccurc against failute to pay for tickets sold by recognised agents. With this end in view, the conditions for minimum financial guarantee and having a Money Changer's licence and other allie4 conditions were prescribed. Intcndment widerlying the scheme of setting up authorised agents is not only to check sharp practices, curb fleecing of guUiblc passengers, .,,,. but render efficient service. The Rules cnsurC fulfilment of the intendmcnt underlying the impugned provisions. Viewed froµi this angle, the conditions are neither irrelevant nor arbitrary. It is ·stated· by the respondents that as many as 17 agents have been &iven the status of authprised railways tourist aa;cnts in Delhi alone. This is n.ot controverted. Theeefore, the condi~ons are capable of being complied with. Failure or inability of some of tbc petitioners to comply with thetll would not be sufficient to reject them as unreasonable, arbitrary or irrelevant. -The conditions are reasonable and are conducive to ihc objects sought to be achieved. (1022 A-El Ramtfna Dayaram Shetty v. The International Airport Authority of India and Ors. (1979] 3 S.C.R. 1014 and M/s Kasturl/al Lakshmi Reddy and Ors. v . . State of Jammu and Kashmir and Anr., [1980) 4 S.C.C. I refeired to. Sec. 114A of the Act merely prescribes punishment for ,_unauthorisedly . carrying on of'business of procuring and supplying rai1way tickets. ·I_~ sec. 66 envisages appointmen~ of authorised agents obviously anything to the contrary would be contravention of sec. 66 and if it is made punishable under sec. 114A of the Act. the section would not be ultra "Vires_ the Constitution. [1023F] · An agency has to be devise
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.