UNION OF INDIAversusSHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.

                      [2010] 4 S.C.R. 593


                       UNION OF INDIA                             A
                                 v.
                SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.
               (Civil Appeal No. 4578 of 2006)

                     DECEMBER 8, 2009*
                                                                  B
     [HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.]

     Administrative Law:

     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.
          Allowing the appeals, the Court
B
         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                  para 6
                                                                          c
 (2001) Suppl. 5 SCR 511 relied on                        para 6
 (1978) 2 SCR 809              cited                      para 7
 (1999) 1 SCR 901              cited                      para 7          D

 (2000) 8 sec 262              relied on                  para 1o
    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                                        . F
C.A. Nos. 4579 & 4580 of 2006 ... · , .          .   ;.


     P.H. Parekh, S. Wasim A. Qadri, A.k. Sharma, Harish ·
Chandra, Savitri Pandey, Ron s·astian, Ashok Blia'n, Subhash
Kaushik, S.N. Terdol, Anil Katiyar, B. Krishna Prasad, Ks. G
Prasad, Chanchal Kumar Ganguli: U.A. Rana, Sakesh Kumar,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Stiakun· Sharma, Rukhmani, Parul
Negi, Sameer Parekh, P.V. Yogeswaran for the appearing
parties.        ·. ' "                                '·
                 .~



    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    596      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.

A        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
B 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
C 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

D         (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
E 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 issu~nce of notice
    several replies were filed by the respondents. controverting the
    pfeas made by the petitioner and also justifying the imposition
F . 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
G 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
H days in advance has since been withdrawn. The Division Bench
  UNION OF INDIA v. SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.                  597
            [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
by its i.udgment dated 9th May, 2005, which has been                 A
impugned in the pr.esent set of appeals, issued certain
directions to Jet Airways, Indian Ajrlines and the Indian
Ratlways with regard to the concessions and extended the
scope qf the public !nt~rest Litigation yet fuf'\tier on the basis
of a news item publis~ed in tne 'Dainik Bhaskar' a local Hindi       B
daily newspaper on 2nd Maren, 20Qq, r~porting 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 fol)nd that the condition of
7 days prior purchase and the condition of a stay two nights at      c
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 i;idvance and calling
upon them to stay at least two nigh~s at the outgoing
                                                                     0
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 winqow at the railway stat\on alone and restrictions on    E
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 opililion that Railway should extend
     the benefit of concession to a senior citizen on changing
     class of journey, extension of journey etc. i.r'respective of   F
     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         G
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                  H
    598      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A   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
B   & 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.

C        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
D   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
E   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
F 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
G 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
H   Vijay Pal Singh and other v. State of U.P. And Others (2007)
   UNION OF INDIA v. SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.                              599
             [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
6•• SCC
    r· .1. '
             44, BALCO Employees' Union (Regd.) v. Union of                       A
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;                8
that the High Court had not been impleaded as a party and that
the ground of the Special Leave petition were vague ~s 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                                 C
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 (DJ by Lrs. v. Salambin Mohammad                            D
(1999) 2 sec 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                  E
  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                F
  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                     G
  at this stage.                               ·       ·   · ·
                      '   • ).   .I       .       '·.         •   -   •   '   .

     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 b~. dOubte.d that a                           H
                                      •       •         I   of'
    600      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A concession granted by a carrier be it the Railways or the Airlines
  or the Rdad 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
B 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
C 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
D 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 ha:> referred us to the reply filed by the
E 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)
F
          2000-2001                   37.97

          2001-2002                   39.38

          2002-2003                  43.07
G         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
H judgment cited by the learned counsel. The basis issue that has
   UNION OF INDIA v. SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.                 6J1
             [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
been decided in these cases is that it is not for the Court, be it   A
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        B·
the judgment in Netai Bag v. State of W.B. (2'000) 8 SCC 262
in the following words:

     12. In Netai Bag v. State of WB. 1 this Court held as under
     in para 20 of the Report: (SCC p. 275)
                                                                     c
     "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 th~t another             D
     decision would have been fairer or wiser or more scientific
     or logical. In State of M. P. v. Nandlal Jaiswa/2 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         E
     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."
                                                                     F
   11. The Court also relied on the judgment of this court in
BALCO Employees Union's case and observed:-
          "l n the well-known case of BALCO /Employees'
     Union (Regd.) v. Union of lndia 3 a three-Judge Bench
     summarised the law on ~he point as under: (SCC p. 335c-         G
     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       H
    602       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2010] 4 S.C.R.


A         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.
8         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
c         because it has been urged that a different policy would
          have been fairer or wiser or more scientifi.c 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
D         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
E         within limits of authority. For testing the correctness of a
          policy the appropriate forum is parliament and not the
          courts"

    and finally concluded:-

F                "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."
G     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
H administrative decision de hors a statue as in this case stands
  UNION OF INDIA v. SHANKAR LAL SONI & ANR.                     603
            [HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.]
on a yet weaker footing.                                                A
      13 . .Mr. Shankar Lal Soni has emphasised that the ~pecial
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           B
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             C
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.                                                      D
      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
                                                                        E
 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                    F
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.
                                                                        G
       15. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
R.P.                                             Appeals allowed