Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Questioning Fare Hike In Bengaluru Metro, Says Administration Has Power

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (April 1) dismissed a public interest litigation questioning the fare hike in Bengaluru Metro also known as 'Namma Metro'.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the petition filed by Sanath Kumar Shetty, an automobile engineer who works in a private company.

The bench on going through the averments in the petition and considering the submission said,

“As far as present subject matter of fare increase is, the same is done under Section 33 of the Act. Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid section that Metro administration is empowered to fix the fare from time to time and the task is done by a fare fixation committee.”

It added:

“The fare fixation by railway administration for operating metro rail is a statutory exercise, the fare fixation committee is entrusted with the task. Fare fixation is an expert exercise. It is not the domain of the court to delve into such aspects. It is better to be considered by the fare fixation committee. Court would not interject in such decision unless statutory infringement is indicated.”

The counsel for the petitioners argued that the fare hike is increased by 71 percent, it is contrary to principles of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation. Further it was argued that they (Bangalore Metro Railway Corporation) have to fix fares station wise but instead they have fixed it stage wise, which cover 2 to 3 stations in one phase.

The plea prayed for a direction to 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 the court, comprising representatives of the user public as the present fare hike violates Articles14, 19(1) (d) and 21 of the Constitution of India.

Further, direct the BMRCL not to exceed the fare by more than 25 percent of the fare prevailing prior to the revision on 08.02.2025 as initially proposed by the 1st respondent in its public press release dated 20.10.2024 since the 1st respondent is bound by the principle of promissory estoppel.

Thus direct BMRCL to strictly 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 inconsistencies in fare determination further, direct that fare revision shall not exceed 25 percent of the fare existing as of 08.02.2025 from station to station.

Rejecting the contention of the petitioner about the breach of promissory estoppel or negation of legitimate expectation the court said, “There was no promise at any point of time to not increase the fare. The concept of legitimate expectation cannot be invoked in the abstract. Nor the circumstances suggest that there is breach of legitimate expectation. Merely because the petitioner had made a representation. It is not possible to conclude that action of R1 is liable to be treated as vitiating on the count of breach of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation.”

Dismissing the petition it said “No case is made out to grant any relief to the petitioners. The PIL and prayers made in are thoroughly misconceived and the petition is dismissed.”

Appearance: Advocate R V Naik for Petitioner.

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

Case Title: Sanath Kumar Shetty & Others AND Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited & Others

Case No: WP 9077/2025