Today, On 1st April, The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the fare hike for Bengaluru Metro, also known as ‘Namma Metro.’ The court stated that it would not intervene unless there was a clear violation of the law. The petitioners had argued that the fare increase was unjust, but the court found no legal grounds to interfere. This ruling reinforces the court’s stance on judicial restraint in matters involving administrative decisions.
Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court dismissed a public interest litigation (PIL) challenging the fare hike for Bengaluru Metro, also known as ‘Namma Metro.’
The petition was filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty, an automobile engineer working for a private firm, who argued that the fare structure should be based on individual stations rather than stages covering multiple stations.
Also Read: Madras HC on Acquiring Temple Land for Metro Station: “God Will Forgive Us”
The bench, comprising Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, raised the question of whether it even had the authority to hear the case.
The court examined the petition and the arguments presented by Shetty’s lawyer, who asserted that the fare increase violated principles of promissory estoppel, as the Bengaluru Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) allegedly broke a promise by raising fares.
The lawyer also requested that the court direct BMRCL to reassess its fare fixation after obtaining a report from the fare fixation committee, and to limit any fare increase to no more than 25%.
The Bench stated,
“Setting the fare is a legal responsibility carried out by experts, and it’s not for the court to get involved in these details.”
The court emphasized that fare fixation is conducted under Section 33 of the Act, which empowers the Metro administration to set fares through a designated committee.
The judges further clarified that the decision regarding fare increases should be left to the fare fixation committee.
They noted,
“The court won’t step in unless there’s a clear violation of the law.”
The bench dismissed the arguments about broken promises or expectations, asserting that there was never an explicit promise regarding fare increases.
Ultimately, the court concluded that the situation did not demonstrate a breach of legitimate expectation.
The judges noted,
“There is no valid reason to give any relief to the petitioners. The Public Interest Litigation (PIL) and the requests made are completely misunderstood, so the petition is dismissed.”
This ruling highlights the court’s position on fare fixation as an expert, statutory exercise, reaffirming the boundaries of judicial intervention in administrative matters.
Case Title: Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others