Madras High Court
M.K.Manikam vs The Union Of India on 22 January, 2018
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, R.Hemalatha
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.01.2018 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA W.P(MD)No. 22705 of 2017 M.K.Manikam .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi. 2.The General Manager, O/o the General Manager, Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai. 3.The Divisional Railways Manager, O/o the Divisional Railways Manager, Southern Railways, Madurai Railway Division, Madurai District-16. .. Respondents PRAYER: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents 1 and 2 to consider the petitioner's claim to shift the railway station from Madurai East to Anuppanadi, Madurai District within the time frame as stipulated by this Court. !For Petitioner : Mr.Fazil for Mr.T.Lajapathi Roy For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar Standing Counsel for respondents :ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] By consent, the writ petition itself, is taken up for final disposal.
2. Mr.S.Manohar, learned Standing Counsel appears for the respondents.
3. The writ petition is filed as a Public Interest Litigation by a resident of Mela Anupanadi, Madurai stating among other things that the metre gauge track of Madurai-Rameswaram has been converted into broad gauge and due to administrative reasons, the railway station which was functioning in Madurai East was closed.
4. The grievance expressed by the petitioner is that in and around Madurai East, there are very many educational institutions viz., Thiyagarajar College, Velammal Medical College, Thiyagarajar Model Higher Secondary School, Meenakshi Sundareshwar Girls Higher Secondary School, Thiyagarajar College of Perceptors, Sourasthra Girls Higher Secondary School, VMJ Higher Secondary School, Nirmala Higher Secondary School, Mother Teresa Higher Secondary School and also near to very many historic places such as Mariamman Theppakulam etc., and the said station catered to the need of very many employees also, apart from the students of the said institutions.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the Madurai East station was closed on account of gauger conversion work, once broad gauge work is completed, the respondents have to reopen the station, however for the reasons best known to them, they have closed the station permanently and this fact was also brought to the knowledge of the concerned officials and the Deputy Chief Engineer, Gauge Conversion, vide his proceedings, dated 18.04.2007, No.W.262/GC/MDU-RMM, has also indicated that the shifting of station from Madurai East to Anuppanadi is feasible and decision to be taken at appropriate level.
6. It is the further submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner that though such positive recommendation has been made about 11 years ago, nothing is forthcoming and in this regard, the petitioner has also submitted a detailed representation, dated 19.06.2017 to the respondents 2 and 3 and inspite of receipt of acknowledgment, no response is forthcoming and left with no other option, the petitioner came forward to file the present writ petition purely in public interest and prays for appropriate orders.
7. Per contra, Mr.S.Manohar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has drawn the attention of this Court to Sections 2(31) and 26 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 and would submit that shifting of station / closing of station is purely a policy decision and the petitioner, under the guise of Public Interest Litigation, cannot seek for relief by directing the concerned Authority to act in a particular manner and also drawn the attention of this Court to the decision rendered by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India & Others Vs. J.D.Suryavanshi reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3605 and prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. This Court has considered the rival submissions and perused the materials placed before this Court.
9. It is relevant to extract Section 2(31) as well as Section 23 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989 which are as follows:
Section 2(31): ?railway? means a railway, or any portion of a railway, for the public carriage of passengers or goods, and includes-
(a) all lands within the fences or other boundary marks indicating the limits of the land appurtenant to a railway;
(b) all lines of rails, sidings, or yards, or branches used for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway;
(c) all electric traction equipments, power supply and distribution installations used for the purposes of, or in connection with, a railway;
(d) all rolling stock, stations, offices, warehouses, wharves, workshops, manufactories, fixed plant and machinery, roads and streets, running rooms, rest houses, institutes, hospitals, water works and water supply installations, staff dwellings and any other works constructed for the purpose of, or in connection with, railway;
(e) all vehicles which are used on any road for the purposes of traffic of a railway and owned, hired or worked by a railway; and
(f) all ferries, ships, boats and rafts which are used on any canal, river, lake or other navigable inland waters for the purposes of the traffic of a railway and owned, hired or worked by a railway administration, but does not include -
(i) a tramway wholly within a municipal area; and
(ii) lines of rails built in any exhibition ground, fair, park, or any other place solely for the purpose of recreation;?
Section 23: Sections 21 and 22 to apply to the opening of certain works:
The provisions of sections 21 and 22 shall apply to the opening of the following works if they form part of, or are directly connected with, a railway used for the public carriage of passengers and have been constructed subsequent to the giving of a report by the Commissioner under Section 22, namely:-
(a) opening of additional lines of railway and deviation lines;
(b) opening of stations, junctions and level crossings;
(c) re-modelling of yards and re-building of bridges;
(d) introduction of electric traction; and
(e) any alteration or reconstruction materially affecting the structural character of any work to which the provisions of sections 21 and 22 apply or are extended by this section.?
10. The definition of ?railway? as per Section 2(31) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989, is having wider amplification and as per Section 23(b), it speaks about the opening of stations, junctions and level crossings.
11. The Honourable Supreme Court of India in Union of India & Others Vs. J.D.Suryavanshi reported in AIR 2011 SUPREME COURT 3605, while dealing the matter in Public Interest Litigation praying for appropriate direction directing to introduce new coaches and to reschedule the timings of the trains, after taking into consideration its earlier decisions, in paragraph No.10, observed as follows:
?10. 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. We may usefully refer to the following observation in the Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998) made in a different context:
? With regard to institutional separation of roles, into policy, regulatory and management functions, these roles are currently blurred, which causes confusion about the underlying vision and mission of Indian Railway. The institutional separation of roles will mean that policy makers are limited to setting policy; regulators fix competition rules in general and pricing in particular; management manages and is measured against clear performance indicators.?
12. In the considered opinion of this Court, this Court lacks expertise to embargo upon the matter like this in and by which, the prayer is sought for to reopen a particular railway station. It is also the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents that due to the economic inviolability, a fair decision has been taken by the railway authorities to close the station permanently and insofar as the proceedings of the Deputy Chief Engineer, gauge conversion, dated 18.04.2007, it is his contention that it is merely a recommendatory thing and after taking into consideration of the relevant factors, the railway authorities had decided not to open the Madurai East station after gauging conversion.
13. In the considered opinion of this Court, it is a decision lies within the domain of the railway authorities and it is a policy decision. Unless it is specifically pointed out its arbitrariness or malafideness, this Court cannot exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not inclined to interfere with the same.
14. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
To
1.The Union of India, represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2.The General Manager, O/o the General Manager, Southern Railways, Park Town, Chennai.
3.The Divisional Railways Manager, O/o the Divisional Railways Manager, Southern Railways, Madurai Railway Division, Madurai District-16.
.