<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Ccourt on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the recent fare hike by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL). </p><p>A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind said that fare fixation is an expert exercise and it is not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects which are to be better considered by the fare fixation committee constituted under the statute.</p>.Bengaluru Metro commuters express outrage over fare hike, students hit hard.<p>The petition was filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty and two other Bengaluru residents. The petitioners sought direction for re-assessment of fare fixation. They claimed that the 71% fare hike was too high and violates fundamental rights of the user public. </p><p>The petitioners contended in response to an earlier representation BMTCL had agreed not to exceed the fare hike beyond 25%. Relying on this, the petitioners argued on the ground that the fare hike was in breach of promissory estoppels and legitimate expectation, as held by the Apex Court. The petitioners further sought a direction to the authorities to strictly adhere to the station-to-station fare fixation mechanism as mandated under section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.</p><p>However, the division bench observed that the submissions regarding the breach of promissory estoppels or doctrine of legitimate expectation hardly have any legs to stand. The bench said there was no promise at any point of time not to increase the fare, neither any circumstances of the case suggest that there is any breach of legitimate expectation.</p><p>The court said that as per section 33 of the Act the metro rail administration is empowered to fix the fares from time to time and the task is done by the fair fixation committee constituted under section 34. “The proviso contemplates that the railway administration may fix the fair under this section even without recommendation of the fair fixation committee on the initial opening of the metro railway. The fare fixation by the railway administration for the operation of metro rail is a statutory exercise in the sense that the fair fixation committee constituted under the law is entrusted with the task,” the bench said.</p><p>The court further said, “The fare fixation is an expert exercise where a host of considerations would have applied, including technical and financial considerations. It is not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects which are to be better considered by the fare fixation committee constituted under the statute. Court would not interject in such decisions unless statutory infringement is indicated.”</p>
<p>Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Ccourt on Tuesday dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the recent fare hike by the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL). </p><p>A division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind said that fare fixation is an expert exercise and it is not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects which are to be better considered by the fare fixation committee constituted under the statute.</p>.Bengaluru Metro commuters express outrage over fare hike, students hit hard.<p>The petition was filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty and two other Bengaluru residents. The petitioners sought direction for re-assessment of fare fixation. They claimed that the 71% fare hike was too high and violates fundamental rights of the user public. </p><p>The petitioners contended in response to an earlier representation BMTCL had agreed not to exceed the fare hike beyond 25%. Relying on this, the petitioners argued on the ground that the fare hike was in breach of promissory estoppels and legitimate expectation, as held by the Apex Court. The petitioners further sought a direction to the authorities to strictly adhere to the station-to-station fare fixation mechanism as mandated under section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002.</p><p>However, the division bench observed that the submissions regarding the breach of promissory estoppels or doctrine of legitimate expectation hardly have any legs to stand. The bench said there was no promise at any point of time not to increase the fare, neither any circumstances of the case suggest that there is any breach of legitimate expectation.</p><p>The court said that as per section 33 of the Act the metro rail administration is empowered to fix the fares from time to time and the task is done by the fair fixation committee constituted under section 34. “The proviso contemplates that the railway administration may fix the fair under this section even without recommendation of the fair fixation committee on the initial opening of the metro railway. The fare fixation by the railway administration for the operation of metro rail is a statutory exercise in the sense that the fair fixation committee constituted under the law is entrusted with the task,” the bench said.</p><p>The court further said, “The fare fixation is an expert exercise where a host of considerations would have applied, including technical and financial considerations. It is not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects which are to be better considered by the fare fixation committee constituted under the statute. Court would not interject in such decisions unless statutory infringement is indicated.”</p>
