Milan Travels vs The General Manager, Western Railway, Bombay and Another

The petitioner by this writ petition has challenged the order in appeal by the Railway Board rejecting the appeal against the order of Western Railway which in turn had rejected the application of the petitioner for licence as the Rail Travellers'' Service Agent, observing that when the appeal was decided in the month of July, 1988, about 160 reservations per day were done at Bhuj and as per the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Railways, it is not necessary to issue licence to any travel agent at any railway station where the daily reservation is less than 500. Another reason for rejecting the appeal was that R. B. Thakkar had filed a Civil Suit in the Civil Court at Bhuj for licence as a Travel Agent and in that the respondent had also taken the contention that no proposal of other applicant is being considered and therefore in case the licence is to be issued, the prayer for licence by other agents are required to be considered.

The petitioner applied for the licence as Travel Agent contending inter alia, that the petitioner is normally engaged in the business of rail agent at Bhuj and after insertion of Section 114-A in the Indian Railways Act, 1890 (hereinafter referred to as the Railways Act), the vires of the said action and of the Railways Tourist Agent Rules, 1980, were challenged in the Supreme Court in Inder Mal Jain and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, and the Supreme Court upheld the vires of the said Section and the Rules, but directed the Railway Board to prepare a scheme for recognising the travel agents catering to the needs of Class II passengers with sufficient control over their activities. As per the directions of the Supreme Court, Authorisation of Rail Travellers'' Service Agents Rules, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) were framed and placed before the Supreme Court and after discussion, debate and consensus in the Court, the said rules were annexed as part of the judgment. The Supreme Court accepted the scheme as specified in the said Rules. The petitioner accordingly submitted application for the licence for Rail Travellers'' Service Agent at Bhuj, but the application of the petitioner was rejected on the grounds referred to above. The petitioner has challenged the order in appeal and has also challenged the policy decision taken by the Railway Board fixing quota, as according to the petitioner that is arbitrary and not provided by the Scheme or the Rules.

Section 114-A of the Railways Act provides for the penalty for unauthorised carrying on the business of procuring and supplying railway tickets for travel on railway for reserved accommodation for journey in a train, by the persons, not being the railway servant or an agent authorised by the railway administration in that behalf. It is therefore, apparent that without authorisation the business of such agency is prohibited under the provisions of the Railways Act. To regularize the authorisation for such travel agency business, Authorisation of Rail Travellers'' Service Agents Rules, 1985 are enacted which provide for the conditions for the appointment of the agent. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides that "the number of agents for each station on railway shall be such as may be determined by the competent authority". As defined in Rule 2(c) of'' the Rules, ''competent authority'' means the General Manager of the Zonal Railway or any officer authorised by him to discharge his functions under those rules. In exercise of the said powers, the Chief Commercial Superintendent, who is competent authority under the Authorisation of Rail Travellers'' Service Agent Rules, 1985, has taken the decision that the station having a quota of berths/ seats less than 500 tickets, should not be considered for appointment of any Rail Travellers'' Service Agent and a station having a quota of 500 berths/seats should be considered for appointment of one Rail Travellers'' Service Agent (Annex. I). That policy decision was reconsidered by the Railway Board and the policy was laid down that no Agent be appointed in a Town where daily reservations is less than 500 berths/seats (excluding waiting list but including Reservation against Cancellation) and in case the daily reservations exceeds 500, a minimum of 2 agents should be licensed. It is also decided that the maximum number of agents in a town should be worked out on the basis of one agent for 500 reservations.

Mr. Oza, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that the Chief Commercial Superintendent or the Railway Board had no authority to take such policy decision and the decision is also arbitrary as it is not rational. As discussed above, the competent authority is authorised to determine the number of agents for each station on railway under subrule (4) of Rule 3 of the Authorisation of Rail Travellers'' Service Agents Rules, 1985. That power also includes to decide as to for which station the agents may not be appointed. The policy decision not to appoint any agent for the station having daily reservation less than 500 berths/ seats by the competent authority is under the statutory provisions and cannot be considered to be the unauthorised act or decision. That submission of Mr. Oza, therefore, deserves to be repelled.

Mr. Oza also submits that the decision to appoint one Rail Travel Agent for the stations having the reservations or quota of 500 berths/ seats and two such agents for the stations having the reservations or quota of 501 to 1000 berths/seats and not to appoint any agent for the stations having reservations or quota of less than 500 berths/seats, is arbitrary, as in a case the reservations or quota may be 499 berths/seats per day the agent may not be appointed, while in a case of reservations or quota of 500 berths/ seats one agent will be appointed and in a case of 501 reservations or berths/seats two agents may be appointed. It cannot be accepted that the decision is arbitrary as it is based on rational consideration having nexus with the object of appointing the Rail Travellers'' Service Agents, The object is well defined in Inder Mal Jain and Another Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, . The necessity of appointing the Rail Travel Agents is felt with a view to facilitate the passengers to get the tickets and reservations for the berths/ seats in the railway coach. For the Railway Stations having the reservations less than of 500 berths/seats per day, the demand may not be such so that the passengers may not get the said facility without the help of the Rail Travel Agent or that the reservations may be required to be secured in advance before some days. Any rational figure is required to be fixed so as to take the policy decision. It, therefore, cannot be said that the decision is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.

So far as Bhuj is concerned, it is stated by the petitioner that the reservation quota is only of 238 berths/seats and from November 1, 1988, 50 more seats would be added. According to the respondents as stated in the affidavit-in-reply of G. V. Raghvan, Deputy Chief Commercial Superintendent (R), Western Railway, quota for Bhuj on the date on which the application of the petitioner was decided, was 226. Mr. Raghvan has also stated that the quota being less than 500 berths/seats which has been fixed for granting the authorisation as Rail Travellers'' Service Agents, no such agent is appointed.. He has also stated that at other stations i.e. Surendranagar, Godhra, Junagadh, Mehsana, Bhavnagar, etc. such agents are not appointed as the quota of berths/ seats is less than 500 per day. It is, therefore, clear that uniform policy is adopted by the respondents for issuing Rail Travellers'' Service Agent Licences and the Licences are not issued arbitrarily.

From the order of the appellate authority it is clear that when the order was passed in July, 1988 about 169 reservations were made per day at Bhuj. The quota of reservation of berths/ seats being 226 and the normal reservation in July, 1988 being 169 it is apparent that the reservation could be easily secured at Bhuj and therefore, it may not be necessary for the passengers to get the reservation in advance. The submission of Mr. Oza, learned Advocate for the petitioner, that Kutch being backward area passengers will have to come from. far distance for reservation is not justified. For that reason also it can be conveniently observed that the appointment of the Rail Travel Agents is not a compelling necessity so far Bhuj is concerned.

The order by this Court (Coram: G. T. Nanavati, J.) in Special Civil Appln. Nos. 6948/87, 497/88 to 499/88, dt. Feb.3, 1988 referred in the petition and in the course of the arguments is not much relevant as no law relating to the point at dispute in the present petition is laid down in that order. The appeals were dismissed by the Railway Board on the ground that the licences were issued to two parties which were considered more suitable and reasons were not given for not issuing the licences to the appellants in that matter. In light of that it was observed that unless reasons are given in the order justifying the need to restrict the licences only to two or three parties, the appeals could not have been rejected by the Railway Board. The Railway Board was directed to rehear the appeals. The Rules and the policy decisions do not appear to have been referred to before the learned Judge and, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned, Judge to consider the policy decision.

For all the above reasons, this petition is dismissed with costs.Notice stands discharged.

10.Petition dismissed.