Patna High Court Case: RPF's Authority and the Rights of Railway Ticket Agents



Introduction:

This case, heard in the High Court of Judicature at Patna as Criminal Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 368 of 2023, addresses the issue of whether the Railway Protection Force (RPF) has the authority to conduct raids and initiate criminal proceedings against railway e-ticket agents located outside railway station premises. The petitioners, various travel agencies, contested the actions of the RPF, arguing that the raids, searches, seizures, and subsequent arrests were illegal and violated their fundamental rights.

Background:

The petitioners are proprietorship travel agents, some of whom are authorized by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC) as primary agents, with the others authorized as Retail Service Providers (RSPs) to book railway e-tickets. They operate from offices located outside the Patna, Danapur, and Rajendra Nagar railway stations.

Petitioners' Claims:

The travel agents claimed that the RPF had been conducting illegal raids on their offices, seizing articles, and initiating prosecutions under Section 143 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. They argued that these actions were outside the RPF's jurisdiction, as their offices were not located within the "passenger area" as defined by the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957. They also alleged that the RPF conducted these raids to extract illegal gratification and did not adhere to due process during arrests, violating their rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution of India, as well as the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.

Respondents' (RPF) Stand:

The RPF, in its counter-affidavit, denied the allegations of illegal raids and gratification. They contended that the travel agents were involved in black-marketing of Tatkal tickets, using private IDs to book tickets during the initial 15 minutes when the booking opens, thus depriving the general public. They argued that this was a violation of IRCTC terms and conditions and an offense under Section 143 of the Railways Act. The RPF also claimed that the agents' offices fall under the "passenger area" because they are frequently visited by passengers.

High Court's Analysis and Findings:

The Patna High Court, presided over by Justice Bibek Chaudhuri, examined the arguments and legal provisions. The court framed two main issues:

  1. Whether the actions of the RPF were legal and within their jurisdiction.

  2. Whether Section 143 of the Railways Act was applicable to the petitioners.

The Court made the following observations and rulings:

  • Applicability of Section 143 of the Railways Act: The court held that Section 143, which deals with unauthorized carrying on of the business of procuring and supplying railway tickets, does not apply to authorized agents of IRCTC like the petitioners. The court noted that IRCTC has its own penal provisions for any fraudulent activities by agents, including hefty fines and suspension of services. Therefore, the petitioners, being authorized agents, cannot be prosecuted under Section 143 of the Railways Act.

  • Jurisdiction of RPF: The court examined the definition of "passenger area" under the Railway Protection Force Act, 1957, and Section 2(29) of the Railway Act, 1989, which defines a "passenger." The court concluded that the term "passenger area" should be interpreted in conjunction with the definition of "passenger," meaning a person traveling with a valid ticket. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis (of the same kind), the court held that the phrase "such other area as is frequently visited by passengers" in the definition of "passenger area" should be interpreted in relation to railway platforms, trains, and yards. It cannot be extended to include any place outside these areas, such as the petitioners' offices.

  • Legality of RPF Actions: The court ruled that the raids conducted by the RPF on the petitioners' offices, which are located outside the railway station premises, and the subsequent filing of cases under Section 143 of the Railways Act, were illegal and beyond the statutory powers of the RPF. The court stated that if there are allegations of wrongdoing against the travel agents, the RPF should inform the IRCTC for appropriate action under the terms and conditions of their agreement with the agents.

Decision and Implications:

The Patna High Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the criminal proceedings against the petitioners under Section 143 of the Railways Act, and held that the RPF's actions were void ab initio (from the beginning).

The judgment clarifies the jurisdictional limits of the RPF and the rights of authorized railway ticket agents. It establishes that:

  • The RPF's authority to conduct raids and initiate proceedings is limited to the "passenger area," which does not extend to travel agents' offices located outside railway station premises.

  • Authorized IRCTC agents cannot be prosecuted under Section 143 of the Railways Act for alleged irregularities in ticket booking; instead, IRCTC is required to take action as per the contractual agreement.

  • The ruling protects the rights of travel agents to conduct their business in accordance with the law and prevents the misuse of power by the RPF.

  • The court granted the petitioners the liberty to take action against the concerned RPF officers for unlawful arrest, for violating the guidelines of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar.