UNION OF INDIA versus SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.

Citation: [2010] 4 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 08-12-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.S. BEDI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2010] 4 S.C.R. 593 
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.] 
Administrative Law: 
A 
B 
Concessions provided by Railways and Airlines to senior c 
citizens -
Subjected to certain conditions -
Conditions 
challenged - HELD: A concession being given on the basis 
of administrative policy, no beneficiary thereof has a right to 
insist on a particular condition - Further, it is open to the 
authorities to withdraw the concessions a/together - Courts 
0 
should not interfere in such matters on the premise that some 
of the conditions imposed were not justified - Public Interest 
Litigation - Letter Petition. 
In a letter petition, which was taken up as a public 
interest litigation by a Division Bench of the High Court, 
E 
it was stated that while granting concessions to senior 
citizens by Airlines, the condition to purchase the ticket 
7 days prior to the journey and a stay of two nights at the 
outgoing destination, nullified the concessions. The High 
Court directed the Airlines to give concessions without 
F 
the twin conditions. Direction was also issued to Railways 
to extend the benefit of concession to senior citizens on 
changing class of journey, extension of journey etc. 
irrespective of the fact that the transaction occurs at 
railway reservation counter or the railway ticketing G 
window at railway station. Certain directions pertaining 
to railway safety were also given. Aggrieved, the Union 
of India and the Airlines filed the appeals. During the 
• 
Judgment Recd on 16.4.2010 
593 
H 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
hearing before the Supreme Court, it was pointed out that 
some of the conditions challenged before the High Court 
were later waived, and the matter before the Supreme 
Court remained largely academic. 
B 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. No person has a right to insist that the 
concession granted by a carrier, be it the Railways or the 
Airlines or the Road Transport Corporation, should be 
with conditions determined by that person. It has not 
c been disputed that it would be open to the authorities to 
withdraw the concessions altogether and in some cases, 
as in the case of Jet Airways, the concessions given to 
the senior citizens have been modified. [Para ·9] [600-A-
C] 
D 
1.2. Keeping in view the financial impact of the grant 
of concessions to senior citizens, as reflected in the 
judgment, it can safely be assumed that they result in 
substantial loss to carriers. Concessions are granted on 
the basis of administrative policy. A concession based 
E on an administrative decision de hors a statute, as in the 
instant case, stands on a yet weaker footing. Courts 
should not interfere in such matters on the premise that 
it was of the opinion that some of the conditions were not 
justified, as that is a decision for the administrators on 
F 
an examination of the various facets before them and the 
inputs they receive from various sources. The judgment 
of the High Court is completely unsustainable and is set 
aside. [Para 10, 12 and 14) [600-F-H; 601-A-B; 603-G) 
G 
Ram Singh Vijay Pal Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. 
and Ors. 2007 (5) SCR 1060 = (2007) 6 SCC 44; Balco 
Employees' Union (Regd) v. Union of India & Ors. (2001) 5 
Suppl. SCR 511 = (2002) 2 SCC 333; Netai Bag vs. State 
of W.B. (2000) 8 sec 262, relied on. 
H 
1.3. As regards the directions made by the High 
UNION OF INDIA v. SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR. 
595 
Court with regard to safety measur~s to be taken by 
A 
Railways, the matter is left for decision of another Bench 
of this Court before which the case is pending.[Para 14) 
[603-F-G] 
Udai Chand vs. Shankar Lal and Ors. (1978) 2 SCR 
8 
809 = (1978) 2 SCC 209; and Taherakhatoon (D) by Lrs. 
vs. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 1 .SCR 901 = (1999) 2 
sec 635, cited. 
Case Law Refe~ence: 
(2007) 5 SCR 1060 
relied on 
(2001) Suppl. 5 SCR 511 relied on 
(1978) 2 SCR 809 
cited 
(1999) 1 SCR 901 
cited 
para 6 
para 6 
para 7 
para 7 
(2000) 8 sec 262 
relied on 
para 1 o 
. . 
c 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil App_eal ,Ng': 
4578 of 2006. 
· · 
' 
• 
.. 
E 
From the Judgment & Order dated 9.5.2005 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench at Jaipur in D:B. 
Civil Writ Petition Nos. 1962 & 7162 of 2004. 
" 
. . . 
WITH 
C.A. Nos. 4579 & 4580 of 2006 ... · , . 
. ;. 
. F 
P.H. Parekh, S. Wasim A. Qadri, A.k. Sharma, Harish · 
Cha
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.