Arun Kumar, J. ( 1 ) [ed. facts. Indian Rlys. had a system of granting passes to its employees for free travel with some limitations. A practice had grown of kingly power of Rly. Minister and his Deputy Minister of giving free passes to anyone they liked and this discretion was being widely abused. Also in 1997, two Memos were issued allowing members of Rly. Board, serving or retired to free passes in ACC for any place without any limitation. Petitioner challenged these as unconstitutional. She also prayed for direction for better facilities to ordinary passengers. In the reply, Govt. enumrated several steps at had taken for improvement of services. The Court and petitioner were satisfied. ] After detailing above, Judgement proceeds: ( 2 ) THE network of the Indian Railways is perhaps the largest in the world. Majority of our countrymen depend on Railways for their transportation. The urgency and need of implementing the recommendations of the high-level committee appointed by the Ministry of Railways at the instance of this court, can hardly be over-emphasized. The recommendation must be implemented as early as possible. It is also imperative to supervise and oversee the implementation of these recommendations. There should be a continuous process of improving the system looking to the larger public interest because Railways is the principal mode of transportation of passengers and goods in this country. ( 3 ) THE other grievance of the petitioner is regarding the bonanza to the serving and retired members of the Board by introducing platinum passes. By the orders dated 30. 4. 1997 and 3. 6. 1997 passed by the Railway Board, it has been decided that serving members of Railway Board travelling alone or accompanied by eligible members of their families may travel any number of times on the authority of platinum pass in any class in all trains including Rajdhani/shatabdi Express trains, subject to some conditions. 4. 1997 and 3. 6. 1997 passed by the Railway Board, it has been decided that serving members of Railway Board travelling alone or accompanied by eligible members of their families may travel any number of times on the authority of platinum pass in any class in all trains including Rajdhani/shatabdi Express trains, subject to some conditions. ( 4 ) THE petitioner has expressed her serious apprehension that when there is severe dearth of reserved train tickets in almost all the trains, then this kind of lifetime bonanza by the Railway Board for its members for endless travel by first class air conditioned coaches would make a situation even more difficult and the already scare Railway reserved tickets will henceforth become a truly rare commodity which only the influential and otherwise powerful people will be able to lay their hands upon. ( 5 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that Indian Railways, is more than a century old organisastion and is governed by well structured Acts and rules. The facility of free passes is governed by Railway Servants Pass Rules, 1986. According to Rule 4, the Railway servant or the entitled members of his/her family and dependent relative, as defined in these rules may be issued following kinds of passes : (I) Duty Pass, (ii) Privilege pass (including passes while on deputation), (iii) School Pass, (iv) Post retirement complimentary Pass, (v) Widow Pass, (vi) Residential Card Pass, (vii) Special Pass. ( 6 ) DULY passes have been further categorised in three categories : (a) Gold Pass; (b) Silver Pass and (c) Bronze Pass. ( 7 ) ALL those officials who have been conferred this facility through platinum passes were earlier covered by Gold Passes to some extent. But this privilege was confined to the officials while they are on duty. By a Memo dated 30-4-1997, a special category of Platinum Pass has been introduced by which this privilege has been extended to these officials when they are not on duty and even after their retirement. The said order reads : (----) ( 8 ) AGAIN on 3. 6. 1997 another letter of the Railway Board was issued in which it was stated that the facility of a companion on post retirement account will be available only when the retired Board Members travel alone unaccompanied by eligible members of family. The said order reads : (----) ( 8 ) AGAIN on 3. 6. 1997 another letter of the Railway Board was issued in which it was stated that the facility of a companion on post retirement account will be available only when the retired Board Members travel alone unaccompanied by eligible members of family. ( 9 ) DURING the pendency of this W. P. and perhaps because of great public criticism by the letter dated 22. 12. 1997, the privilege given to a retired Member of Railway Board, to take a companion with him in the same class (1st A. C. C.) was withdrawn. ( 10 ) IT may be pertinent to mention that alongwith the letter dated 22. 12. 1997, schedule VIII has been mentioned. It was mentioned that in the category of Post Retirement Complimentary facility, retired members of the Railway Board and the eligible members of their family will be entitled to travel any number of times on the authority of card passes having all the attributes of Platinum Pass in any class in all trains including Rajdhani Express and Shatabadi Express Trains subject to the condition that they would not have more than two berths in I-AC or 2 seats in Executive Class. In case of Rajdhani Express train, they can avail either two berths in I-AC/ac Sleeper or four berths in 3/ac. These restrictions will not apply to other classes. ( 11 ) IF the card passes are to have all the attribites of Platinum Passes, then we fail to understand why have the Platinum Passes not been issued to the retired Members of the Railway Board ? ( 12 ) WE also fail to understand that when the travelling public face insurmountable difficulties in getting reservation then why the members of the Railway Board are permitted to carry a dog in a 1st Class Air Conditioned Coach ? There are separate set of Railway. Rules by which dogs/pets can be transported. This change or consequent amendment in the rules was hardly warranted. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner while distributing largesses the State cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and distribute this kind of bonanza to a specially carved out class of senior officials of an organization (Railways ). In granting largesses the State cannot give a total go-by to the principle of rationality and equality. ( 13 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner while distributing largesses the State cannot act arbitrarily at its sweet will and distribute this kind of bonanza to a specially carved out class of senior officials of an organization (Railways ). In granting largesses the State cannot give a total go-by to the principle of rationality and equality. When the State departs from the well-established norms and principles, (as laid down by the Supreme Court in a catena of cases), the action of the State becomes liable to be struck down. ( 14 ) THE petitioner submitted that even according to the existing rules in the Indian Railways, both the serving and retired Railway employees and their families are entitled to three set of passes, (free train journeys anywhere in the country three times a year) The retired Railway employees are also entitled to three sets of passes per year which entitle them and their family members to travel in any pan of the country. This is a unique privilege to the Railway employees and enjoyed by no other set of employees in the government. Any way the petitioner has no grievance with the existing facilities and perquisites enjoyed by all Railway emploees and their families. All the existing perquisites and facilities given to the serving and retired employees of the Railways may continue but the petitioner s only grievance is with regard to the special bonanza given only to the serving and retired members of the Railway Board. This bonanza which is meant only for the serving as well as the retired Chairmen and Members of the Railway Board has created grave discrimination among the Railway employees. The other Railway employees have not been given similar (lifetime endles travel) facility even by the ordinary first class, IInd A/c, or even by the ordinary second class. In case the Railways (Union of India) wanted to confer this benefit, they ought to have conferred it on all the Railway employees according to the classes of their entitlement. In the counter-affidavit the respondents tried to justify their action by stating that this bonanza was given in recognition of their long services to the Railways. This explanation or justification cannot withstand the test of rationality or equality. All Railway employees in their respective positions are expected to serve the Indian Railways from the date of their appointment till superannuation to the best of their ability. This explanation or justification cannot withstand the test of rationality or equality. All Railway employees in their respective positions are expected to serve the Indian Railways from the date of their appointment till superannuation to the best of their ability. The length or period of service to the organisation would be more or less the same in case of all the Railway employees. The real question which falls for consideration is whether the Railways is justified in giving this special benefit only to a small section of senior Railway officials ? ( 15 ) THE third issue is regarding properiety of issuing thousands of free cheque passes issued by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of State for Railways without following any guidelines, norms, basis or criteria. In the additional affidavit of Dr. P. K. Goel, Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Rail Bhawan filed on behalf of the respondents indicates that the Minister of Railways has issued 4842 cheque passes in less than one year i. e. from 3. 6. 96 to 1. 6. 97 in addition to 2520 cheque passes which were issued by the Minister of State for Railways during the same period. ( 16 ) THE total number of 7362 cheque passes were issued in less than a year. In the affidavit, it is mentioned that the practice of affixing photographs and recording particulars like address, the period of validity and category criteria is in vogue in respect of card passes which are put to multiple and repeated use. Similar details are not maintained in respect of cheque passes. Usually, this single journey passes are valid for 15 days and in case the return journey is also included, they are valid for one month. On the directions of the court, an additional affidavit was filed in which the names, addresses, Class, occupation and stations for which the passes were issued, have also been indicated. The complimentary passes issued by the office of the Minister of Railways shows that neither the address nor reason for issuing these passes have been indicated. The discretion which vests with the Ministers could not be questioned if the same is exercised judiciously and for good and valid reasons. The scrutiny and analysis of the said annexure reveal that no reasons for issuing these cheque passes have been indicated. Even the addresses and names have not been furnished. The discretion which vests with the Ministers could not be questioned if the same is exercised judiciously and for good and valid reasons. The scrutiny and analysis of the said annexure reveal that no reasons for issuing these cheque passes have been indicated. Even the addresses and names have not been furnished. Even according to the affidavit submitted on behalf of the respondents, it is clear that 7362 cheque passes have been issued by the Minister of Railways and Minister of State for Railways in less than a year ? ( 17 ) ON the directions of the court, a supplementary affidavit has been filed by Shri P. K. Goel, Executive Director, Passenger Amenities, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, on 15. 9. 1997. In this affidavit, it is mentioned that because of the observations of the court that there were no guidelines for issuing cheque passes, now the Railways have prepared detailed guideline for issuing complimentary cheque passes in pursuance to the directions of this Court. The guidelines as framed are as under :- " (I) A person desirous of getting a cheque pass should apply for the same in writing, clearly bringing out the reasons for which the cheque pass is required and giving his address; (ii) Cheque passes may be issued in deserving cases only on the personal orders of MR/mos (R)/dmr/board Members. (iii) In emergent cases, cheque passes may be issued on the requisition from the Designated officers of Gazetted rank in the Minister s Secretariat communicating the approval of MR/mos (R)/dmr; (iv) Cheque passes may be issued on the following grounds :- (a) Medical grounds for major treatment/survery etc. involving travel over long distance, taking into account the financial position of the applicant, and medical need; (b) Compassionategrounds, e. g. in the case of passengers losing-their money and belongings in theft/picking of pockets, etc; (c) Eminent persons engaged in serial, cultural, educational, sports and welfare activities when they have to undertake emergent and specific journeys on matters of importance; (d) Poor and destitute persons who are required to perform specific journeys. (v) Not more than a maximum of four persons will be allowed on one Cheque Pass; (vi) Validity of Cheque Pass will not exceed 15 days for one-way journey and 30 days for both-ways journey or specified by the Issuing Authority on special considerations, depending on the nature of the case; (vii) Applications with competent authority s order thereon will be sent to G (Pass) Branch for issuing the Cheque Passes. If the case does not fall within the guidelines, G (Pass) Br. will remit it back to the concerned authority for re-consideration. ( 18 ) WE are happy to note that on the directions of this court guidelines have now been framed by the respondent Railways. We trust and hope that the aforesaid guidelines would be followed in by the respondent Railways. ( 19 ) SUPREME Court on a number of occasions reflected and gave comprehensive guidelines how the discretionary powers should be exercised and what necessary precautions, norms and parameters have to be followed while exercising discretionary powers? ( 20 ) IN Ban galore Medical Trust Vs. B. S. Muddappa (1991) 4 SCC 54 , Supreme Court had an occasion to reflect on the discretionary powers of the executive tool in administration. It provides an option to the authority concerned to adopt one or the other alternative. While exercising the discretion, the concerned authority should rationally and objectively take a decision in accordance the law. Apart from that, the authority concerned cannot act whimsically or arbitrarily. It should be guided by the concept of reasonableness and fairness. The legislature never intends its authority to abuse the law or use it unfairly. ( 21 ) THE concerned authority while exercising the discretion must bear in mind that they are accountable for their actions. The proper exercise of the discretion would be one where the said decision can be successfully tested on anvil of rule of law, fairness or justice. Apart from these considerations, while exercising the discretion, the authorities must keep public interest or general good or social betterment in view. ( 22 ) IN Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State 1991 (1) SCC 212 the Court observed that the Constitution does not envisages or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in state action in any sphere of its activities. Apart from these considerations, while exercising the discretion, the authorities must keep public interest or general good or social betterment in view. ( 22 ) IN Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi Vs. State 1991 (1) SCC 212 the Court observed that the Constitution does not envisages or permit unfairness or unreasonableness in state action in any sphere of its activities. ( 23 ) IN the said case, the Court observed that the private parties are concerned only with their personal interest whereas the State while exercising its powers and discharging its functions is expected to keep the public good and public interest in mind. The well known constitutional expert Professor Wade in his classic tretise on international LAW (6th Edition) observed at pages 400-401 which we quote the relevant passage and reproduce the same. "the whole conception of unfettered discretion is inappropriate to a public authority, which possesses powers solely in order that it may use them for public good. " ( 24 ) EVERY holder of the public office by virtue of which he acts on behalf of the State or public body is ultimately accountable to the people in whom the sovereignty vests. As a matter of fact every holder of me public office is a trustee whose highest duty is to the people of the country and, therefore, every act of the holder of a public office, irrespective of the label classifying that act, is in discharge of public duly meant for public good. In the said judgment their Lordships have observed as under: "every State action, in order to survive, must not be susceptible to the vice of arbitrariness which is the crux of Article 14 and basic to the rule of law, the system which governs us. Arbitrariness is the very negation of the rule of law. Satisfaction of this basic test in every state action is sine qua non to its validity.----- Arbitrariness is anathema to State action in every sphere and wherever the vice percolates, the court would not be impeded by technicalities to trace it and strike it down. This is the surest way to ensure the majesty of rule of law guaranteed by the constitution of India. This is the surest way to ensure the majesty of rule of law guaranteed by the constitution of India. Conferment of the power together with the discretion which goes with it to enable proper: expercise of the power is coupled with the duty to shun arbitrariness in its exercise and to promote the object for which the power is conferred, which undoubtedly is public interest and not individual or private gain, whim or caprice of any individual. All persons entrusted with any such power have to bear in mind its necessary concomitant which alone justifies conferment of power under the rule of law. The question, whether an impugned act is arbitrary or not, is ultimately to the answered on the facts and in the circumstances of a given case. An obvious test to apply is to see whether mere is any discrenible principle emerging from the impugned act and if so, does it satisfy the test of reasonablness. Where a mode is prescribed for doing an act and there is no impediment in following that procedure, performance of the act otherwise and in a manner which does not disclose any discrenible principle which is reasoble, may itself attract the vice of arbitrariness. Every State action must be informed by reason and it follows that an act uninformed by reason, is arbitrary. " ( 25 ) IN Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. I. A. A. 1979 (3) Supreme Court 489 and Kasturi Lal Vs. State, (1980) 4 SCC 1 ; the court observed that Article 14 of the Constitution regarding equality applies to matters of Governmental policy and if the policy or any action of the Government even in contractual matters fails to satisfy the test of reasonableness, it would be unconstitutional. ( 26 ) THE basic requirement of Article 14 is fairness in action by the State and the State cannot be permitted to act otherwise in any field of its activity. ( 27 ) SUPREME Court in aforesaid cases observed that even in the matter of grant of largesses including award of jobs, contracts, quotas and licences, the arbitrary. Govt. must act in fair and just manner and any arbitrary distribution of wealth would be violative of law of the land. ( 28 ) IT has been observed in Dwarka Das Vs. Govt. must act in fair and just manner and any arbitrary distribution of wealth would be violative of law of the land. ( 28 ) IT has been observed in Dwarka Das Vs. Board of Trustees 1989 (3) SCC 293 that every action of the executive authority must be subject to rule of law and must be informed by reason. So, whatever be the activity of the public authority, it should meet the test of Acrticle 14. ( 29 ) IT is said that absolute discretion leads of absolute arbitrariness. Doughlas J. in the celebrated judgment United States Vs. Wunderlich, 342 US 98 : 96 Law Ed 113 (1951) observed that "law has reached its finest moments, when it has freed man from the unlimited discretion. Where discretion is absolute, man has always sufferred. It is in this sense mentioned that the rule of law may be said to be sworn enemy of caprice. " ( 30 ) LORD Masfield in famous case John Wilkes (1770) 3 Burr 2528 observed : "discretion means sound discretion guided by law. It must be governed by rule of law, not humour. It must not be arbitrary, vague and fanciful. " ( 31 ) IN Lucknow Dev. Auth. Vs. M. K. Supra (1994) 1 SCC 243 Supreme Court quoted : Rooked Vs. Barnard (1964) 1 All ER 367 with approval where Devlin, J. observed that the servants of the Govt. are also the servants of the people and the use of their powers must always be subordinate to their duty of service. ( 32 ) THE Authority empowered to function under a statute while exercising powers discharges public duty. It has to act to subserve general welfare and common good. In a modern society, no authority can arrogate to itself the power to act in a manner which is arbitrary. In Lucknow Dev. Auth. Vs. M. K. Gupta (1994) 1 Supreme Court Cases 243 the Court observed that Public servants can not arrogate to themselves the power to act in a manner which is ( 33 ) SUPREME court in Common Cause Vs. Union of India JT 1996 (8) Supreme Court 613 observed that the Govt. today - in a welfare state - provides a large number of benefits to the citizens. It distributes wealth in the form of allotement of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases, contracts, quotas and licences, etc. Union of India JT 1996 (8) Supreme Court 613 observed that the Govt. today - in a welfare state - provides a large number of benefits to the citizens. It distributes wealth in the form of allotement of plots, houses, petrol pumps, gas agencies, mineral leases, contracts, quotas and licences, etc. Govt. distributes largesses in various forms. A Minister who is the executive head of the department concerend distributes these benefits and largesses. He is elected by the people and is elevated to a position where he holds a trust on behalf of the people. He cannot commit breach of the trust reposed in him by the people. In case the discretion is used wholly in an arbitrary and unjust manner, then it cannot be sustained. ( 34 ) IN Mahinder Kumar Vs. U. O. I. (1995) 1 S. C. C. 85 the court observed that the distribution of the largesses of the State is for the common good and to subserve the common good of as many persons as possible. The Court observed that every action of the executive Govt. must be informed with reasons and should be tree from arbitraness. This is the very essence of rule of law and its bare minimal requirement, ( 35 ) AN American; Professor Rich in his famous article "the New Property" 73 Yale Law Journal 733, says "that Government action be based on standards that are not arbitrary or unauthorised. " The Govt. cannot be permitted to say that it will give jobs or enter into contracts or issue quotas or licences only in favour of those having grey hair or belonging to a particular political party or professing a particular religious faith. The Govt. is still the Govt. when it acts in the matter of granting largesse and it cannot act arbitrarily. It does not stand in the the same position as a private individual. " ( 36 ) ON analysis of above judgments, it becomes abundantly clear that the discretionary powers must be exercised rationally, fairly and objectively. The holders of public office must exercise the discretionery powers solely for the public good. Proper exercise of the discretionary powers is to shun arbitrariness. Powers and discretion are conferred for the public interest and not for the private gain of any individual or a group of individuals who happen to be holders of the public office. The holders of public office must exercise the discretionery powers solely for the public good. Proper exercise of the discretionary powers is to shun arbitrariness. Powers and discretion are conferred for the public interest and not for the private gain of any individual or a group of individuals who happen to be holders of the public office. On the basis of the principles as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, our conclusions and findings on the main issues involved in the petition are as follows :- ( 37 ) WE have carefully analysed these suggestions and recommendations given by the expert committee to mitigate the sufferings of the travelling public. The recommendations are suggestions given by the Committee are indeed very important and proper implementation of these recommendations would certainly go a long way in mitigating and solving the problems and sufferings of the travellings public. These recommendations need to be implemented as expeditiously as possible in the larger public interest. It is also imperative to supervise and oversee the implementation of these recommendations and suggestions. The Railways may consider creating a special Cell of experts which may oversee and supervise these recommendations so that the recommendations and suggestion are taken to their logical conclusion. There should be a continuous process of improving the system looking to the needs of the travelling public because the Railways is the principal and dominant mode of transportation of passengers and goods in this country. ( 38 ) THE other two issues raised in this petition pertain to the distribution of largesses such as issuing of tree passes and platinum passes. The Minister of Railways and the Minister of State in less than one year (3-6-96 to 1-6-97) distributed 7362 cheque passes. In the amended guidelines, it is mentioned that one cheque pass can be allowed for four persons and for both ways of the journey. The petitioner has not made the grievance that the concerned Ministers should not be given discretionary powers in this regard but the grievance is restricted to the manner in which the discretionary powers have been used. In less than a year, 7326 cheque passes have been issued without any justification except in a very few cases. The petitioner has not made the grievance that the concerned Ministers should not be given discretionary powers in this regard but the grievance is restricted to the manner in which the discretionary powers have been used. In less than a year, 7326 cheque passes have been issued without any justification except in a very few cases. ( 39 ) ON analysis of the documents placed on record along with the affidavit it is revealed that in most cases, even the addresses, occupation and the reasons for which these passes were issued had not been shown. No valid and/or good reasons have been shown for issuing Railway passes cheque passes and card passes. A large number of recipients of these passes belong to a particular constituency of these passes belong to a particular constituency in Bihar. On the basis of documents on record, we can safely conclude that no norms were followed while issuing these passes. It has to be realised by the holders of the public office that what was distributed in the form of largesses is not the part of personal empire or asset of any individual but all that belonged to the people of this country. The holders of the public office are trustees of the national assets and it istheir highest duty that in all their decisions, the public interest must always remain paramount, We can safely conclude without any reservation that the discretionary powers in issuing free cheque passes were discretionary powers in issuing free cheque passes were exercised in a most arbitrary manner in total disregard of public interest. ( 40 ) IN order to ensure that such abuse or misuse of the discretionary powers may not take place in future, we requested the learned counsel appearing for the Railways that on their own, the Railways must put a ceiling on the number of free passes, cheque passes and card passes to be issued by the Ministers in a year because it is very heavy strain on the public exchequer. The counsel categorically stated it is not possible to fix any upper limit on the discretionary quotas of the Ministers. Ordinarily this court may not question the discretion which vests with the Ministers, if the same is exercised judiciously and for good and valid reasons. The counsel categorically stated it is not possible to fix any upper limit on the discretionary quotas of the Ministers. Ordinarily this court may not question the discretion which vests with the Ministers, if the same is exercised judiciously and for good and valid reasons. But as we have seen that there has been great indiscretion in exercising the discretionary powers, therefore, we are constrained to observe that a ceiling should be laid down with regard to the maximum number of such passes to be issued in a year. On the basis of past experience of normal use of this discretion, the Railways should specify the maximum limit. This should be done within three months. Our object in fixing the limit is that the discretionary quota of the Ministers may not be misused or abused in future in the same manner. ( 41 ) NOW we revert to the issue of distribution of largesses in the form of life time bonanza of unlimited free travel by First Class AC Coach, for the serving and retired members of the Railway Board, with their family members. This has also been carefully examined by us. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs that serving and retired members of the Railway Board with their families are otherwise entitled to three sets of passes every year which entitle them to travel in any part of the country in First Class AC Coach with their other members of family tree of cost. This facility is also extended to other Railway men and they can also travel with their family members according to the classes of their entitlement. ( 42 ) THERE is hardly any justification or good reason for giving this additional life time bonanza by carving out a very special class of passes for some senior officials of the Railways. In our considered opinion, giving Special Platinum Passes and Card Passes to have all attributes of Platinum Passes would mean unlimited tree travel by 1st Class ACC for rest of their life for serving and retired members of the Railway Board and their families alone would be discreminatory because this privilege is not extended to other Railway officials or employees. On the parity of reasoning, officials of other organizations, such as Air India, Indian Airlines and many more may ask for a similar privilege. On the parity of reasoning, officials of other organizations, such as Air India, Indian Airlines and many more may ask for a similar privilege. On consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances, the Memos dated 30. 4. 1997 and 3. 6. 1997 by which this special privilege giving platinum passes to a very special class of Railway officials deserved to be quashed and we accordingly quash the same. ( 43 ) BEFORE parting with this judment, we would like the holders of public offices to always remember as indicated in Kumari Shrilekha s case (supra) that "be you ever so high, the 1aws are above you".