Madras High Court
P.Jayageethan vs The Chairman on 11 September, 2018
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 11.09.2018 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD WP.No.22474 of 2017 P.Jayageethan ... Petitioner vs. 1. The Chairman, Railway Board Rail Bhawan, Rail Mantralaya, New Delhi. 2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai. ... Respondents WRIT Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to provide railway gate near the existing railway gate at LC 45 in the limits of Vellur Village Panchayat, Kammapuram Union, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Udhayakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar Standing Counsel for Railways ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.MANIKUMAR, J) Instant Public Interest writ petition is for a mandamus, directing the respondents to provide railway gate near the existing railway gate at LC 45 in the limits of Vellur Village Panchayat, Kammapuram Union, Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District.
2. The grievance of the petitioner is that Gate viz. LC 45, in the limits of Vellur Village Panchayat, Kammapuram Union Viruthachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District, provided by the Southern Railways, has been in existence for more than 100 years and the same has been used by the adjoining villagers for ingress and egress to the market place, bank, panchayat office, school, to transport agricultural products. Said gate has been closed without providing alternative gate, as a result, public have to take circuitous route. Expressing hardship and inconvenience, village Panchayat has passed resolution on 13.10.2016, recognizing the need for railway gate and also submitted representations dated 20.03.2017 and 25.02.2017, respectively, to the respondents and other officials. As the grievance has not been redressed, instant writ petition has been filed, for the relief stated supra.
3. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for Railways submitted that following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as a matter of policy, unmanned level crossings through out the country are being closed. Accordingly, unmanned level crossing 45, was closed. He further submitted that Gates LC 44 & 46, are at a distance of 700 and 600 meters, respectively, with a closed level crossing. He has also produced a rough sketch showing the closed unmanned LC 45 and the other two level crossings 44 and 46.
4. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for Railways further submitted that on an earlier occasion, when a similar writ petition [W.P.No.19557 of 2015 in the matter of S.Gnanaeswaran Vs. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi - 600 001 and another], came up for hearing, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has dismissed the writ petition. For the above said reasons, he prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard Mr.S.Udhayakumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned standing counsel for the Railways and perused the materials available on record.
6. Representation dated 25.03.2017, reads thus.
Sub: Restore the pathway across Railway line to avoid inconvenience to the cultivators, school students - seeking action - reg.
Sir/Madam, The Railway gate LC 45 situated within the Panchayath limits of Vellore village Panchayath in Kammapuram Union, Virudhachalam Taluk, Cuddalore District was in usage for about 100 years. While lands were acquired by the N.L.C. about 30 years back and one gate keeper was appointed and maintained for usage of the villagers. While so, the Railway authority have closed the gate without any prior intimation about 6 months back. By the act of the Railway authority, the villagers of Vellore, Velikoonankurichi, Samuttikuppam and the people residing around the village are suffering without passage and ration goods are not transported. People are not able to vote during the election and students are also suffering to go to school. Agricultural goods produced in about 150 acres cannot be transported and hence the day today life is heavily affected. The Tamil Nadu Government has constructed a bridge to connect the said road at the cost of Rs.15,00,000/-. The said bridge is kept without usage. Hence, it is requested that the LC45 Railway Gate should be opened and maintained by appointing a Railway Staff."
7. In Consumer Education and Research Centre Vs. Union of India and another, in Writ Petition (Civil) No.162 of 2001, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, while considering the prayer that unmanned level crossings should be manned with sufficient persons and there should be signals at the level crossings or there should be over-bridges or any other such facility where such accidents take place. After hearing the learned counsel for the Railways, ordered as follows:-
"Learned counsel appearing for the Railways stated that a comprehensive policy is proposed to be evolved but it would be difficult for the Railways to have signals at all the level crossings. It is also stated that at every such Railway gate, there has to be at least four persons employed and it will be difficult for the Railways economically to provide such safeguards at every Railway gate as in all there are approximately 18,200 unmanned level crossings.
In our opinion, Railways can think of having some safety measures to avoid such serious accidents. Wherever there is obstruction in seeing oncoming trains some measures can be taken to avoid such obstructions by installing the display boards with luminous paints or any such other mechanism. The Railways can also, in consultation with the local bodies or the district administration provide speed breakers on the roads near the railway level crossings.
The Railways can also think of engaging some local people as part-time workers in thickly populated places or the accident prone areas/zones near the railway crossings for purpose of avoiding accidents. We hope that Railways would evolve such policy by which some of these accidents can be avoided in future. We direct the learned counsel appearing for the Railways to suggest a comprehensive policy on the next date of hearing as to how these accidents at railway crossings could be avoided or minimised.
List in the last week of July, 2009."
8. Thereafter, when the matter came up for further hearing, the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 13.09.2010, ordered thus:-
"This writ petition was filed by Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC, Ahmedabad) under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Union of India through Ministry of Railways for immediate conversion of unmanned railway crossing gates into manned level-crossings. By the said writ petition, petitioner has prayed that Railways should take steps to formulate and implement Action Plan in order to convert all unmanned railway crossings into manned level-crossings.
This petition was filed in 2001. Since then Railways have issued detailed Guidelines. They have also filed a detailed counter indicating steps which have been taken to provide for manned level-crossings. No instance has been brought to our notice where the Guidelines have been flouted. The role of the Court ends with the Guidelines being framed by the Railways. However, if in a given case any of the Guidelines are flouted in implementation in a given State, it would be open to the petitioner to move the concerned High Court with regard to implementation of the said Guidelines.
For the aforestated reasons, the writ petition is disposed of."
9. In Ajay Gautam Vs. Union of India and another, Writ Petition (Civil) No.761 of 2014, dated 26.02.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered thus:-
"1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:
(a) Issue appropriate writ and directions in the nature of mandamus to both the respondents to make ensure the safety of the children's on unmanned railway crossings. As well as on roads since the children's being adolescent is vulnerable road users, globally, there are special rules & regulations for the protection of children.
(b) Directions may be issued to both respondents to take steps to completely eliminate the unmanned railway crossings and in the meantime make provisions to ensure proper safety of commuters who cross those crossings.
(c) Further directions may be issued to both the respondents for making proper arrangements, to ensure proper and prompt emergency medical care for accidents victims as the delay in the same has fatal results.
(d) Pass such other and further order/s as may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The matter has remain pending before this Court for a considerable period of time. During this period the Ministry of Railways, by means of affidavit filed from time to time, has apprised the Court of its response in the matter and the steps taken by it to tackle the problem of accidents resulting in deaths occurring in unmanned level crossings that are spread out all over the country. In the affidavit dated 1st September, 2015 filed on 4th September, 2015, the Ministry of Railways has indicated in detail the number of unmanned level crossings in the country and the rate at which the conversion of such unmanned level crossings are being made. In the said affidavit, the Union has also indicated a time period within which it hopes to resolve the issue. The aforesaid time limit though may appear to be a little long, the Court will have to view the same in the context of financial outlay that would be required to bring the problem to a reasonable solution.
3. Having considered the matter and particularly the affidavit dated 1st September, 2015, we are of the view that the Union of India is fully conscious of the need to tackle the problem highlighted in the writ petition and has also taken steps in this regard.
4. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that this matter need not be pursued any further. We, therefore, close the writ petition with the direction that the Union of India would act in terms of what has been stated in its affidavit dated 1st September, 2015 and will take every steps to expedite the process. Beyond the above, we do not consider necessary to issue any directions.
5. The writ petition shall stand disposed of in the above terms."
10. In W.P.No.19557 of 2015 in the matter of S.Gnanaeswaran Vs. The Union of India, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi - 600 001 and another, on 03.07.2015 a Hon'ble Division Bench this Court has passed the following orders.
"The grievance in the writ petition really arises out of lack of social norms and indiscipline in crossing the unmanned railway crossing contrary to the indications when the barrier is down. In our view, certainly the authorities cannot be blamed, if citizens do not adhere to any law or principle. Apart from that, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents, there is already a policy decision to convert all unmanned level crossings in a phased manner by providing requisite arrangements and every year certain unmanned railway crossings are attended to, with the scheme is proposed to be completed by 2018.
2. We are thus of the view, that writ petition is not liable to be entertained and accordingly stands dismissed. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed. No Costs."
11. Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.19557 of 2015 and placing on record the submission of the learned standing counsel for the Railways, that unmanned level crossing LC45, has been closed, following the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the matter of closing / converting unmanned level crossings throughout the country and in the light of alternate level crossings LC 44 and 46, situated a distance of about 700 and 600 meters respectively, from the closed unmanned level crossing 45, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 11.09.2018 Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes Speaking/Non speaking ars/dm S.MANIKUMAR,J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars/dm To
1. The Chairman, Railway Board Rail Bhawan, Rail Mantralaya, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.
WP.No.22474 of 201711.09.2018