EARLY TIMES REPORT
JAMMU, Aug 24: In a PIL, highlighting high airfare being charged by airlines from Jammu to other destinations, A Division Bench of J&K High Court Comprising Chief Justice Gita Mittal and Justice Rajesh Bindal observed that judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy or price fixation. It is not open to a writ court to supplant its views with those taken by the private bodies over which, as herein, the private airlines whose actions are being challenged.
DB further observed that General, Civil Aviation is satisfied that any Air Transport Undertaking has established excessive or predatory tariff under sub rule (1) or has indulged in oligopolistic practice, he shall, by an order, issue directions to such Air Transport Undertaking, which direction of Director General Civil Aviation are required to be complied with by the Air Transport Undertaking. There is substance in the contention of the respondents that the petitioners have not made any specific allegation but have premised the writ petitions on newspaper reports and made vague and general submissions.
The petitioners have also not made any complaint to the Director General, Civil Aviation in accordance with Rule 135 of the Aircraft Rules, 1937 and have approached this Court without having taken recourse to the statutory remedy available to them.
It is trite that judicial review is not concerned with matters of economic policy or price fixation. It is not open to a writ court to supplant its views with those taken by the private bodies over which, as herein, the private airlines whose actions are being challenged.
It is well settled that even if the writ petition is maintainable, this Court does not have the expertise or jurisdiction to undertake the exercise of price fixation.
As noted above, the writ petitions must therefore fail for several reasons. The petitioners had available an efficacious alternative remedy in the nature of the appeal to the Secretary, Ministry of Civil Aviation under Rule 3 (B) of Aircraft Rules, 1937, which the petitioners have failed to exhaust. JNF
|
