The Madras High Court Bench here on Tuesday clarified that an interim order passed by it on October 19, on a suo motu PIL petition, directing private bus operators plying on inter-city and inter-State routes to desist from enhancing their fares by 10 per cent during Deepavali season would be without prejudice to the State government’s contention that the operators did not have any right to fix fares for individual passengers.
Justices S. Nagamuthu and M.V. Muralidaran clarified their order following a review application preferred jointly by the Home Secretary, Transport Secretary and Transport Commissioner on the ground that the interim direction issued by the court to the government to publicise the fares ordered to be collected by the private bus operators during Deepavali should not be construed as having recognised a right to fix fares for individual passengers.
Presenting the review application, Advocate General R. Muthukumaraswamy told the Bench that though a review would not lie against an interim order, he only wanted a clarification from the court since it was the consistent stand of the government that private buses plying on inter-city and inter-State routes fell under the classification of ‘contract carriages’ and hence not competent to fix and collect fare from individual passengers.
Accepting his plea, Mr. Justice Nagamuthu said they were constrained to take up suo motu notice of the issue and pass the orders directing bus operators to continue to charge the fares fixed by them last year only with a view to protecting the passengers from being fleeced. He also recalled that an association of the bus operators had represented in the court that it had decided to enhance the fares only after a discussion with the Transport Minister and Commissioner.
During the course of hearing, the senior judge told the AG that he came across a television debate recently on the interim order passed on regulating bus fares. “In that debate, one of the panelists said judges have not descended from heaven.
Another panelist wanted to know if any fundamental right of a citizen had been infringed for the court to have taken suo motu notice of the issue.
One more panelist also justified the enhancement in bus fares.
“He said it is common for the prices of jasmine to go up during festive seasons and argued that the same logic would apply to bus fares too. Why don’t we call these people to this court and have an open discussion with them just like the Supreme Court has summoned its former judge Mr. Markandey Katju to hold a discussion on the order passed by it in a murder case?” he asked.
The AG said it was better to ignore such issues. Concurring with him, Senior Counsel M. Vallinayagam, representing the All Omni Bus Owners Association, said those people would not know the significance of maintaining the decorum of the court and therefore it would not be advisable to entertain them as part of the court proceedings. Accepting their opinions, the judge said that he would drop that idea.
