 filed seeking direction to the Respondent Authorities to state on affidavit that when there is a need to frame appropriate legislation or rules for protecting the interest of the Air Travellers why they have not done that so far.){kind=link}
The Bombay High Court disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed seeking direction to the Respondent Authorities to state on affidavit that when there is a need to frame appropriate legislation or rules for protecting the interest of the Air Travellers why they have not done that so far.
The PIL filed by one Bhagvanji G. Raiyani further prayed that respondent Authorities to assure the High Court that they will through Union Of India (UOI) will propose to the Parliament to frame such legislation to rationalize air faires and to protect the interest of the air passengers and also those of airlines for reasonable profit in their operation.
The Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice Arif S. Doctor have heard the Petitioner in-person and perused the PIL papers. The Petitioner has handed over certain orders passed by the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission. After narrating his personal experience, the Petitioner has stated as follows: –
“14. The Petitioner asks the Respondents through this Hon’ble Court why they have allowed cartelization of air fares against the interest of the petitioner and other air travelers who have no understanding of their fundamental relevant laws, time and recourses to approach to this Hon’ble Court or other forum to protect their interest against exploitation by the captioned airlines and other such commercial travel operators.
Further he asks why the UOI and Respondent No.1 and 2 never thought to bring a legislation or policy and rules for renationalization of air fares uniform keeping provision for inflation and prices static, giving reasonable profit to the airline owners but not undue exploitation of the passengers. Uniformity in fares structure can be maintained all through the year irrespective of day, date, time season and holidays with small fluctuations for meeting inflation as in the case MRPs printed on commodities packages. This will benefit the currently most loss making airlines.”
The petition is framed in too general terms to enter into arena of complex fiscal issues. The Petitioner has annexed his representation made to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, wherein, he has stated his grievance and has sought to give certain suggestions. Since the Petitioner has already made representation/ suggestions to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, the High Court leave the matter at that.