- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 9077 OF 2025 (GM-RES-PIL) BETWEEN: 1. SRI SANATH KUMAR SHETTY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, S/O. LATE SRI NAGAYYA SHETTY, NO. 736, 7TH MAIN, BCCHS LAYOUT, VAJARAHALLI, KANAKAPURA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 109. 2. SMT. CHAITHANYA SUBRAHMANYA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O. SRI SUBRAHMANYA KODIPADI SUNBEAM 2132, SOBHA HILLVIEW OFF KANAKAPURA ROAD, THALAGHATTAPURA BENGALURU - 560 109. 3. MR. CHETAN GANIGER, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, S/O. DR. IRAPPA GANIGER, R/AT NO.305, TOWEL 2, HARA VIJAYA HEIGHTS, VISL LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560 109. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI R.V. NAIK, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 AND: 1. THE BANGALORE METRO RAIL CORPORATION LIMITED (BMRCL) REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, BMRCL HEAD OFFICE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. 2. THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND URBAN AFFAIRS, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT No.1 TO REASSESS THE FARE FIXATION AFTER OBTAINING A REPORT ON THE FARE INCREASE FROM A COMMITTEE APPOINTED AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THIS HON'BLE COURT COMPRISING REPRESENTATIVES OF THE USER PUBLIC AS THE PRESENT FARE HIKE VIOLATES ARTICLES 14, 19(1)(d), AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) Heard learned advocate Mr. R.V. Naik for the petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Smt. Niloufer Akbar for respondent No.3, who appeared to assist the court upon service of the copy of the petition in advance. 2. Invoking the jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution, the present public interest petition is filed by three petitioners who happen to be Automobile Engineer, holder of degree of M.Sc in Microbiology, and Electronics and Communication Engineer employed in a private firm, respectively. 3. The prayers advanced by the petitioners are to direct respondent No.1-the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited to reassess the fare fixation after obtaining the report on the fare increase from the Committee appointed as per the directions of this court. The second prayer is to direct the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited (BMRCL) not to exceed the fare beyond 25% - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 of the fares prevailing prior to the revision which was effected on 08.02.2025 as initially proposed by the BMRCL. 3.1 It is further prayed to direct respondent No.1 to adhere to the station-to-station fare fixation mechanism as mandated under Section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002 and to rectify the alleged inconsistencies in fare determination. Prayer is also made to direct the BMRCL to ensure compliance under Section 23 of the Act of 2002 by displaying fare tables at all metro stations in different languages. 4. The plank of submission of the petitioners in seeking grant of the aforesaid prayers is that earlier, representations were made to the BMRCL not to increase the existing fares beyond 25%. In this regard, learned advocate for the petitioners relied on the press release, whereby it was reported that the BMRCL was considering the fare increase of 15% to 25% since the last revision of 10% to 15% in 2017. It was submitted that now, the increase in the fare has gone up to 71% which is almost 100%. 4.1 It was, therefore, submitted that the fare increase by the BMRCL is liable to be frowned upon for two reasons. Firstly, it was - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 submitted on behalf of the petitioners that it is in breach of the principles of promissory estoppel. It was next submitted that in increasing fare, the BMRCL has acted in contravention of the doctrine of legitimate expectation. The concept of promissory estoppel was sought to be explained by learned advocate for the petitioners by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Company Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1979) 2 SCC 409] in particular, by highlighting that where one party has by his words or conduct made to the other party an unequivocal promise, the said party is bound to act upon accordingly. 4.2 Another decision also of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The State of Jharkhand and others vs. Brahmputra Metallics Limited, Ranchi and another, which was Civil Appeal Nos.3860- 3862 of 2020 (arising out of SLP(C) Nos.14156-14158 of 2020) decided on 01.12.2020, was pressed into service to submit that the doctrine of legitimate expectation is wider than the concept of promissory estoppel and that as per the doctrine, the authorities are expected to honor their own statements. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 5. The present subject matter of hiking the metro fare is done under Section 33 of the Metro Railways (Operation and Maintenance) Act, 2002. 5.1 Section 33 of the Act of 2002 reads as under, "33. Fixation of fare for carriage of passengers.- The metro railway administration shall, from time to time, on the recommendations made to it by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted under sub-section (1) of Section 34, fix, for the carriage of passengers, fare for travelling from one station to another of the metro railway: Provided that the metro railway administration may fix the fare under this section without recommending of the Fare Fixation Committee on the initial opening of the metro railway." 5.2 Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid Section that the metro railway administration is empowered to fix the fares from time to time. The task is performed by the Fare Fixation Committee constituted under Section 34(1) of the Act of 2002 for carriage of passengers for travelling from one station to another and for such purposes. The Proviso contemplates that the railway administration may fix the fare under this Section even without recommendation of the Fare Fixation Committee on the initial opening of the metro railway. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 5.3 The fare fixation by the railway administration for operation of the metro rails is therefore a statutory exercise. It is the Fare Fixation Committee constituted under the law which is entrusted with the work of fare fixation. Fare Fixation is an expert exercise where host of considerations would apply 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. The court would not interject in such decisions unless a statutory infringement is indicated. Methods of pricing or methods of fare fixation are not the function of the court. 5.4 The submissions about the breach of promissory estoppel or negation of doctrine of legitimate expectation hardly have any legs to stand. There was no promise at any point of time not to increase the fare. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in abstract. Nor the circumstances of the case suggest that there is any breach of legitimate expectation merely because the petitioners had made representations that the fare should not be increased beyond a particular level and that has not been done. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13477-DB WP No. 9077 of 2025 Methods of pricing or methods of fare fixation are not the function of the court. 5.5 It is not possible to accept the contention that the action on part of the respondents amounts to breach of promissory estoppel or denial of the legitimate expectation. These principles do not apply in the facts of the case. No case is made out to grant any relief to the petitioners. 6. The public interest petition and the prayers made therein are thoroughly misconceived, not liable to be considered and entertained. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9