The legality of the Indian Railways’ new tatkal ticket rules scrapping the provision for refund of a cancelled ticket fare, has been questioned in the Madras high court.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam issued notice to the Railway Board and Southern Railway, after advocate S Mohan submitted that the no-refund clause would benefit the railways and its staff, and not the travelling public.
The public interest writ petition, filed by S Srinivasa Narayanan of Ayanavaram, contended that prior to November 11, the tatkal booking started two days ahead of the actual travel date. Also, the earlier rule provided for refund of at least 25% of refund of the tatkal ticket fare, if the cancellation was done 24 hours before the scheduled departureof thetrain.Under certain circumstances such as delay of the train beyond three hours at the originating point, the entire ticket fare shall be refunded as per the earlier norms.
However, as per the norms which came into effect from November 11, the refund clause was dropped altogether, and the date of booking of a tatkal ticket was reduced to one day. It also expressly stated that no duplicate ticket would be issued to a tatkal passenger if he happened to misplace the ticket.
Terming these as antipassenger norms, the PIL said genuine travellers would be put to great difficulty. In case of non-cancellation of tatkal tickets, others waiting to be accommodated in confirmed seats could not be allotted seats/berths. There will not be any chance for waitlisted passengers to get confirmed seats/berths, if cancellation of tatkal ticket is not on record.
“The impugned circular that there is no refund on cancellation of confirmed tatkal tickets, is beneficial only to railways and traveling ticket examiners and not to passengers who could not utilize the tatkal tickets. It also deprives the chance of other passengers who are in similar category waiting for accommodation,” the PIL said.
It said the new norms were opposed to public policy of the railways, and added that the reduction of the twoday tatkal period to one day too will adversely affect passengers. He wanted the court to stay the operation of the railway proceedings dated November 11 introducing new normsfor tatkalscheme.
The first bench comprising Chief Justice M Y Eqbal and Justice T S Sivagnanam issued notice to the Railway Board and Southern Railway, after advocate S Mohan submitted that the no-refund clause would benefit the railways and its staff, and not the travelling public.
The public interest writ petition, filed by S Srinivasa Narayanan of Ayanavaram, contended that prior to November 11, the tatkal booking started two days ahead of the actual travel date. Also, the earlier rule provided for refund of at least 25% of refund of the tatkal ticket fare, if the cancellation was done 24 hours before the scheduled departureof thetrain.Under certain circumstances such as delay of the train beyond three hours at the originating point, the entire ticket fare shall be refunded as per the earlier norms.
However, as per the norms which came into effect from November 11, the refund clause was dropped altogether, and the date of booking of a tatkal ticket was reduced to one day. It also expressly stated that no duplicate ticket would be issued to a tatkal passenger if he happened to misplace the ticket.
Terming these as antipassenger norms, the PIL said genuine travellers would be put to great difficulty. In case of non-cancellation of tatkal tickets, others waiting to be accommodated in confirmed seats could not be allotted seats/berths. There will not be any chance for waitlisted passengers to get confirmed seats/berths, if cancellation of tatkal ticket is not on record.
“The impugned circular that there is no refund on cancellation of confirmed tatkal tickets, is beneficial only to railways and traveling ticket examiners and not to passengers who could not utilize the tatkal tickets. It also deprives the chance of other passengers who are in similar category waiting for accommodation,” the PIL said.
It said the new norms were opposed to public policy of the railways, and added that the reduction of the twoday tatkal period to one day too will adversely affect passengers. He wanted the court to stay the operation of the railway proceedings dated November 11 introducing new normsfor tatkalscheme.
