(1.) THIS is a reference by Hidayatullah J. arising out of a Small Causes Court suit. The claim is for a small sum-refund of Rs. 60 as a railway fare and Rs. 45 penalty-but the point at issue is of great and general public importance because it hits at the root of ticketless travelling on railways.
(2.) THE facts are not in dispute. They can be gathered from para. 2 of the referring order which we reproduce: The non-applicant Roopchand along with five others travelled from Seoni to Hdwrah, On the way these persons were asked to produce their tickets and on failure to do so, they were charged Rs. 60 as fare and Rs. 45 as excess charge under Section 113, Railways Act. The plaintiff thereupon brought this suit for refund of this amount alleging that the tickets had already been bought by him and at the time of checking they were with a member of their party who having gone to drink water at a wayside station, had been left behind accidentally. The trial Judge accepted the plaintiff's case and passed a decree in his favour against the Railway which has come up in revision. The reference is occasioned because of a conflict between two single Judge decisions of this and the late Judicial Commissioner's Court,
(3.) WE are concerned here with a statute. In our opinion, it is plainly worded and unambiguous. It is true Padhye J. thought otherwise in Narendranath v. Governor-General in Council A.I.R. (35) 1948 Nag. 106 and had the learned Small Cause Court Judge purported to follow Padhye J. our ability to interfere mighthave been doubtful. Even if he had attempted to interpret the Act, the position might have been different. But he does not refer to Padhye J., nor does he refer to an earlier decision in G.I.P. Rly. Co. v. Mahadeo Bari A.I.R. (15) 1928 Nag, 30 which took the other view; nor does he refer to the statute which goes to the root of the case. He proceeds merely on general principles and on what he considered was the high-handedness of the Travelling Ticket Inspector.