The pandemic has wreaked havoc on the world at large. Every sector was effected. The railway sector only very recently restarted services. Special train service has been constituted in the name of the virus.
Facts
The special train service that was started in the name of the virus has caused a lot of uproars. The train service levies double the fare than the normal trains. At times when everyone faces financial constraints due to the dampening economic activity, this excessive charge cannot be borne. It creates a problem instead of a solution. This fare was challenged before the Chhattisgarh High Court through a PIL.
Arguments
The main arguments raised by the petitioner was the fact that the
“Railways has not given any clear answer regarding the introduction of local trains in the state. It has been charged to collect more fare in the name of special train and not to run passenger and local trains in the state.”
The petition stated that the Railway was permitting the use of special trains alone. Local trains and normal trains were not permitted. The fare of the special trains was excessive.
The railway in response stated the following:
“Trains are not running due to the coronavirus outbreak and only special trains are being run. Special trains charge 30 per cent more fare than normal. Similarly, at least 500 km fare is being collected from the passengers. The charge for the distance which has not been travelled in special trains. At the same time, Rs 50 per ticket is being collected for AC seat in the name of special charge. Similarly, more recovery is being done in each category. It may be known that most special trains are running on the same timings and stop along with their old racks. But they have been named special trains.”
The railway board refused to promise the running of normal passenger trains in Chhattisgarh. The Railways said normal trains will resume activity only when the conditions are “normal.”
The petitioner claimed that the Railway Board had permitted the functioning of normal trains in the nearby states of West Bengal by December. The Railway did not provide any clarification on the same.
Decision
The two-judge bench comprising of Chief Justice P.R. Ramachandra Menon and Justice P.P. Sahu, Sudeep Srivastava, after hearing the pleas from both the petitioner and the respondents adjourned the session. The next hearing is fixed for 15th February. This was taken into consideration the request from the petitioner counsel to study the report submitted by the Railway Board and to file a response affidavit.
