HC asks RInfra, state to resolve Mumbai metro fare dispute quickly

The Bombay High Court today refused to interfere in the dispute over fares on the newly-opened Mumbai metro railway, instead asking the union government to direct its fare fixation committee to expeditiously fix the tariff

The long-touted metro, meant to connect the eastern and western suburbs of India's financial capital, has finally been 'launched' – but even its 11.4-km route has attracted controversy, leaving the city's myriad commuters wondering when if ever it will operate across its planned distance.

The high court upheld the initial fares fixed and notified by Mumbai Metro One Pvt Ltd (MMOPL), an arm of Reliance Infrastructure, at Rs10, Rs20, Rs30 and Rs40, under Section 33 of the Central Metro Act 2002.Mumbai:

The route connects Versova in the west with Ghatkopar in the east.

All the partners in the consortium are members of the fare fixation committee which has been asked to decide the fares of the metro, which became operational this month.

Justice R D Dhanuka also rejected the petition filed by Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) challenging the fares of the Metro.

At present, MMOPL is offering a promotional flat fare of Rs10 for all stations till 9 July.

MMRDA, a state agency, and the Anil Ambani-led Reliance Infrastructure, both of which are part of MMOPL, have a disagreement over the fares. While the state government wants minimum fare of Rs9 and maximum of Rs13 for the rail corridor, its operator MMOPL has announced higher fares of up to Rs40.

According to MMRDA, fares had been decided collectively by all the stake-holders earlier and RInfra cannot change them unilaterally without following a due procedure.

The court held that the arbitration tribunal would decide on the validity and legality of a resolution passed by MMOPL, which is running the Metro, fixing the fares.

However, the arbitrators are yet to be appointed. The court had asked the parties to suggest names of arbitrators. However, they have not arrived at any consensus on the names of arbitrators to form a tribunal.

The judge was of the view that the agreement between the parties of the consortium which had built the Metro was in conflict with the Metro Act.