Madras High Court
R.Chandrasekaran vs Union Of India on 15 October, 2019
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan
W.P.No.29382 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 15.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
W.P.No.29382 of 2019
R.Chandrasekaran .. Petitioner
Vs
Union of India, Rep. By
1.The General Manager
Southern Railway
Rail Bhavan, Park Town
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Chairman
Railway Board
Rail Bhavan
Raisina Road
New Delhi – 100 001. .. Respondents
Prayer:- Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondents to restore
the number of seating / standing capacity Entry and Exit bays in the first
class compartment of pink colour Coaches by allocating two bays in the
three of the said first class compartments hitherto existing in the older
and conventional coaches and curb the menace of unauthorized travel in
the first class compartments through a reward scheme/ or an alternate
scheme to the ticket checking staff.
For Petitioner : Mr. R.Chandrasekaran
Party-in-Person
For Respondents : Mr. P.T.Ramkumar
http://www.judis.nic.in1/10
W.P.No.29382 of 2019
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.] The petitioner was a retired officer of Indian Revenue Service, now practising as an Advocate and he came forward to file this writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, stating that the Southern Railways started introducing improved Pink Colour Coaches, during the month of July '2018, in order to improve the seating/standing capacity of the passengers in the compartments of the Electrical Multiple Units (EMUs) operated between Chennai Beach and Chengalpattu Sector.
2. The principle aim for such an introduction, is to reduce the all around congestion/suffocation experienced by public, during peak hours. The main ground expressed by the petitioner is that in respect of passengers travelling in First Class in old coaches, 111 seats were provided, whereas in improved Pink Colour Coaches, the seating capacity is only 75 number and despite the fact that the passengers travelling in the I Class pay higher than the passengers travelling in the II Class, the corresponding facility is not provided. The petitioner also gave a technical solution to the said problem in paragraph Nos.5 & 6 of his representation dated 16.11.2018, addressed to the first respondent.
3. The petitioner/party-in-person, apart from drawing the attention http://www.judis.nic.in2/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019 of this Court to his representation dated 16.11.2018, would further point out that surprise checking has not taken place and as a consequence, passengers who had the authority to travel in II Class coaches, are travelling in I Class and that apart, ticket less passengers also had increased and no effective mechanism has put in place to check the said menace and despite the said fact having brought to the knowledge of the first respondent in the form of a representation dated 16.11.2018, nothing has taken place to address the said grievance and therefore, he is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation.
4. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 and has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. J.D.Suryavanshi [(2011) 13 SCC 167], and would submit that before introduction of EMU Coaches, a thorough study has been done, including the technical aspects and further pointed out that as against the carrying/accommodation capacity, since very many passengers are travelling in Sub Urban Trains, frequent study is being done to improve the amenities to the passengers and the concern expressed by the petitioner, would be taken into consideration at an appropriate time.
5. This Court, paid its best attention to the rival submissions of the http://www.judis.nic.in3/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019 learned counsels and also perused the materials placed before it.
6. In the decision reported in (2011) 13 SCC 267, the issue pertains to provision of additional berths in three-tier sleeper and AC class coaches in all trains and to complete the second track between Gwalior and Indore, and to submit a progress report to the Court concerned, in respect of the work done in the last 25 years. The Apex Court has considered the said issues and it is relevant to extract paragraph Nos.3,6 and 11 of the said decision :
“3. By the impugned interim order dated 5-7-2010, the High Court directed the Railways to provide a full AC II coach in the Intercity Express. The High Court further directed the Railways to consider and introduce AC I coach in the Intercity Express. While issuing the said direction, the High Court observed : “Needless to say the Benches of this prestigious High Court are smoothly functioning at both the cities viz., Gwalior and Indore” thereby implying that the AC I coach was necessary in the Intercity Express because the High Court has Benches at Gwalior and Indore. The High Court also directed the impleadment of Army Regiments and Border Security Forces to PIL. It further directed the learned counsel for the Union of India to submit in writing how many officers of the Central Government, Armed Forces and Border Security Forces are required to travel from Gwalior to Indore and back. For alleged disobedience of one of the interim orders, a contempt petition (No.178 of 2009) was also filed against the Railways which appears to be pending.
http://www.judis.nic.in4/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019
6. 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. 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. It is possible that in a particular section there may be hardships, inconveniences 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 Railways to provide additional trains, additional coaches and change timings wherever they feel 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 Railways 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 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, superfast trains, passenger trains, goods trains, with different speeds and priorities. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one sector for improving the http://www.judis.nic.in5/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019 functioning will led to chaos involving technical snags and safety problems.
11. This court has repeatedly warned 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. 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.
7. In the decision in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) Vs. Union of India [2008 (4) SCC 848], the matter relates to road safety aspects, for which, the petitioner therein had prayed for directions of the Court, by filing a writ petition and the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as below in paragraph Nos.N, R, U and X:
“N. We have gone deep into the subject of judicial activism and public interest litigation because it is often found that Courts do not realize their own limits. Apart from the doctrine of separation of powers, courts must realize that there are many problems before the country which courts cannot solve, however much they may like to. It is true that the expanded scope of Articles 14 and 21 which has been created by this Court in various judicial decisions e.g. Smt.Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr. AIR 1978 SC 597, have given powerful tools in the hands of the judiciary. However, these tools must be used with great circumspection and in exceptional http://www.judis.nic.in6/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019 cases and not as a routine manner. In particular, Article 21 of the Constitution must not be misused by the Court to justify every kind of directive, or to grant every kind of claim of the petitioner. [Para (47)37] R. We would be very happy to issue such directives if they could really be implementable. However, the truth is that they are not implementable (for various reasons, particularly lack of financial and other resources and expertise in the matter). For instance, the directives issued by this Court regarding road safety in M.C. Mehta's case (supra) hardly seem to have had any effect because everyday we read in newspapers or see the news on TV about Blueline buses killing or injuring people [Para (49)39].
U. The directives sought for in this petition require the expertise of administrative and technical officials, apart from financial resources. Not only should the Court not give such directives because that would violate the principle of separation of powers, but also because these are highly technical matters to be left to be dealt with by administrative and technical authorities who have experience and expertise in the matter [Para (53)43].
X. In our opinion, the Court should not assume such awesome responsibility even on a limited scale. The country can ill afford to be governed through court decrees. Any such attempt will not only be grossly undemocratic, it would be most hazardous as the Courts do not have the expertise or resources in this connection. The judiciary is not in a position to provide solutions to each and every problem, although human ingenuity would not be lacking to give it some kind of shape or semblance of a legal or constitutional right, e.g. by resorting to Article 21 http://www.judis.nic.in7/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019 [Papa (55)45].
8. Nowadays, the Courts are being flooded with lot of writ petitions, styled as Public Interest Litigation, and the public interest litigants request the Court to virtually to run the administration. As pointed out in the Common Cause case (cited supra), the Courts lack necessary technical expertise to address the grievance of the public interest litigants and in the present writ petition, styled as Public Interest Litigation, the petitioner virtually wants a positive direction to the Railways Department to alter I Class Coaches, for the convenience of the travelling public.
9. It is a settled position of law that Courts are concerned only with the legality of the issue, which is purely adjudicatory, and being a Constitutional Court, it is also called upon to give interpretation on the legal issues relating to law and shall bestow it's attention to the adjudication process alone.
10. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, this Court is not in a position to give any positive direction to the respondents to address the grievance expressed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. However, as and when the respondents take a call as to the technical aspects, they may take into consideration the grievance expressed by the petitioner and address the said issue.
http://www.judis.nic.in8/10 W.P.No.29382 of 2019
11. In the result, this writ petition is dismissed, subject to above observations. No costs.
[M.S.N., J.,] [N.S.S., J]
15.10.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes/No
Speaking order / Non-speaking order
ds
To:
1.The General Manager
Southern Railway
Rail Bhavan, Park Town
Chennai – 600 003.
2.The Chairman
Railway Board
Rail Bhavan
Raisina Road
New Delhi – 100 001.
http://www.judis.nic.in9/10
W.P.No.29382 of 2019
M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.,
AND
N.SESHASAYEE, J.,
ds
W.P.No.29382 of 2019
15.10.2019
http://www.judis.nic.in10/10