Karnataka high court dismisses plea seeking 25% cap on Metro fare hike in Bengaluru

Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has dismissed a PIL petition challenging the recent Namma Metro fare hike implemented by BMRCL.
Sanath Kumar Shetty and two other Bengalureans had sought a reassessment of fare fixation, with a 25% cap on fare hike. The petitioners also argued that the fare hike was in breach of promissory estoppel (a promise made by one party to another in the absence of a contract between the two).
However, a division bench comprising Chief Justice NV Anjaria and Justice KV Aravind noted that submissions about breach of promissory estoppel or the doctrine of legitimate expectation have no basis.
"There was no promise at any point not to increase the fare. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the abstract. Nor do the circumstances of the case suggest that there is any breach of legitimate expectation merely because the petitioners made a representation that the fare should not be increased beyond a particular level and that is not being done. It's not possible to conclude that the actions of the respondents are liable to be treated as vitiated on account of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectations; these principles don't apply in the facts of the case," the bench added.
The bench observed that according to Section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act-2002, the Metro rail administration is empowered to fix fares from time to time through a fare fixation committee. "The railway administration may fix the fare under this section even without the recommendation of the fare fixation committee on the initial opening of Metro railway. Fare fixation is a statutory exercise in the sense that the committee constituted under the law is entrusted with the task."
"Fare fixation is an expert exercise where a host of considerations would be applied, including technical and financial ones. It's not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects, which are better considered by the fare fixation committee constituted under the statute. The court wouldn't interject in such decisions unless statutory infringement is indicated. No case is made out for grant of any relief to the petitioners, and the prayers made are thoroughly misconceived, and the petition is dismissed," the division bench said.