AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Raja, J.—The present writ petition has been filed, as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a
peculiar direction from this Court against the respondents to operate 12 CAR EMU train (morning 7.05 and 7.50 trains only) from Thirumalpur to
Chennai Beach via Kanchipuram, Walajabad, Palur, Chengalpet, Tambaram, Guindy, Egmore, Chennai Beach, by considering the petitioner''s
representation made on 12.1.2012. The learned counsel, while elaborating her submissions, stated before this Court that the petitioner, being a
practising Advocate in this Court since 2010, is coming to this Court every day by using electric train from Kanchipuram to this Court, covering a
distance of 95 Kms. While commuting everyday, both in the morning and evening, he is finding it very difficult to even board the train starting from
his destination, as it is having only 9 CAR from Thirumalpur to Chennai Beach. When one compartment is having a seating capacity of only 108
seats, it is very difficult for the ladies, old people, students and office goers to use the train having 9 CAR EMU running at 7.05 a.m. Therefore, the
petitioner made a representation to the Public Relations Officer, Southern Railway on 1.6.2011, followed by another representation dated
21.6.2011, to operate one 12 CAR EMU train in the morning service scheduled at 7.05 a.m. instead of 9 CAR EMU train to reduce the
passengers'' daily struggle to commute the above distance. But, till date, his representations have not been answered by the respondents.
Therefore, in the interest of public, he pleaded this Court to intervene by giving a suitable direction to the respondents to run 12 CAR EMU train
from Thirumalpur to Chennai Beach instead of the present 9 CAR EMU train starting at 7.05 a.m., at Thirumalpur. Adding further, it was pleaded
that this prayer is made purely for the public interest because most of the passengers are students going to SRM University, Madras Christian
College, IIT Madras, Anna University, Government Law College (Fort), Fort Staffs, Court''s staff, Secretariat''s staff, Post Workers etc., hence,
the bonafide of the prayer needs acceptance.
Opposing the said prayer, Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 prayed for dismissing the writ petition
contending that when a similar writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation asking for the same and identical relief before the Honourable
High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench, after granting certain reliefs to add more coaches, the Railway Department preferred an appeal
to the Honourable Apex Court, while allowing the said appeal in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. J.D. Suryavanshi, , it has been held that the
High Courts in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not justified in directing the Railways to provide additional
trains, additional coaches, change timings etc., wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. Therefore, when a
similar prayer made by the petitioner to add more coaches had been rightly considered and negatived by the Apex Court stating that the Railway
Administration has limited resources, limited number of railway engines and railway coaches, particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC I class
coaches and that the Railways will have to distribute and utilise the available resources and the available rolling-stock equitably, uniformly and
appropriately to serve all the sections of the country, the same prayer of the petitioner herein cannot be entertained by this Court.
Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.
Before answering the prayer sought before this Court by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Public Interest
Litigation, it is pertinent to refer to the recent judgment of the Apex Court in Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. J.D. Suryavanshi, In the said
case, a practising lawyer like the petitioner herein, filed a Public Interest Litigation in the year 2009 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior
Bench) seeking almost the same and similar relief for issuance of the following directions to the Railway Administration:-
(i) For adding additional berths in three-tier sleeper and AC class coaches in all trains.
(ii) To reschedule the train timings of Bhind-Indore Intercity Express (Train No. 9319/9320) and Gwalior-Indore Express (Train No. 1125/1126).
(iii) To introduce additional coaches in Dehradun Express and additional coaches in Bhind-Indore Intercity Express and Gwalior-Indore Express
trains. The High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed a series of interim orders in the said case and in order to comply with the said directions, the
Railway authorities also made changes in the timings of several trains and they have also added AC coaches. However, in some cases, the Railway
Administration informed the Court that the demand for further trains/coaches would not be feasible either due to technical reasons or lack of full
capacity utilisation in regard to existing trains/coaches. At this stage, for alleged disobedience of one of the interim orders, a contempt petition was
also filed. Aggrieved by the said order, the Railway authority filed a SLP before the Honourable Supreme Court contending that the High Court
has no jurisdiction to direct either the addition or deletion of coaches on any particular train, or to direct the change of frequencies or timings of a
particular train, because any direction for providing additional coaches where the trains are already running with its normal load of 15 coaches
would cause several technical problems, coach shortages in other trains, complications, safety violations etc.
While answering the above issues, the Honourable Apex Court by relying upon various judgments on the issue, categorically held that the High
Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector without having any material or information about the requirements of other sectors, available
infrastructure, existing demands and constraints, safety requirements, etc., nor can the High Court direct introduction of trains or additional coaches
of a particular category or direct change in timings of a train. Changing the timing of a train is not a simple process, but requires co-ordinated
efforts, as it would affect the timings of other trains. There are also different types of trains-express trains, super fast trains, passenger trains, goods
trains, with different speeds and priorities.
In this context, it is also relevant to extract paragraphs 6, 7 and 11 of the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in UNION OF INDIA AND
OTHERS VS. J.D. SURYAVANSHI mentioned supra, as follows:
The Railway administration is a specialized field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It has limited resources and limited number of
railway engines and railway coaches, particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC-I class coaches. Railway will have to distribute and utilize the
available resources and the available Rolling Stock equitably, uniformly, and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. It is possible that
in a particular section there may be hardship, in conveniences and need for introduction of more trains, better timings, and better facilities. But one
sector is not India. We shudder to think what would happen if every High Court starts giving directions to the Railway to provide additional trains,
additional coaches and change timings wherever they fell that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. Even in the State of Madhya
Pradesh, we are sure that apart from Gwalior-Indore sector, there are other sectors which may be facing similar hardships and problems. The
Railway does not exist to cater to a particular sector. It is for the Railway administration to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should
be added or the timings should be changed. The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or the technical skills required for running
the Railways. The High Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector without having any material or information about the requirements of
other sectors available infrastructure, existing demands and constrains, safety requirements etc. Nor can the High Court direct introduction of trains
or additional coaches of a particular category or direct change in timings of a train. Changing the timing of a train is not a simple process, but
requires co-ordinated efforts, as it would affect the timings of other trains. There are also different types of trains-express trains, super fast trains,
passenger trains, goods trains, with different speeds and priorities. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one sector for improving the
functioning will led to a chaos involving technical snags and safety problems.
In BALCO Employees Union (Regd.) Vs. Union of India and Others, , this Court held: (SCC p. 382, para 97)
Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or statutory obligations on the
part of the Government. Here it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of
public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct the administration of the
country. Courts will interfere only if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory provisions or non-compliance by the State with its
constitutional or statutory duties. None of these contingencies arise in this present case.
This court has repeatedly warned that courts should resists the temptation to usurp the power of the Executive by entering into arenas which
are exclusively within the domain of the executive. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on which
lines what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters to be decided by the Railway administration using technical
inputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and other considerations. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should not interfere in
matters of policy or in the day-to-day functioning of any departments of governments or statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for
separation of roles has been voiced.
The above observation of the Apex Court while delineating the scope of judicial review of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has clearly emphasised that Courts should resist the temptation to usurp the power of the executive by entering into arenas which are
exclusively within the domain of the executive. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on which lines
what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters to be decided by the Railway Administration using technical
inputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and other considerations. While this being the legal position, the issue raised in this petition is
no longer res integra, therefore, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be answered in her favour. Accordingly, this Court finds no merit in the writ
petition and dismisses the same. However, there will be no order as to costs.