Kerala High Court
N.K.Vallikannu vs General Manager on 3 December, 2018
Author: A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Bench: Hrishikesh Roy, A.K.Jayasankaran Nambiar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.HRISHIKESH ROY
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR
MONDAY,THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/12TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940
WP(C).No. 26356 of 2012
PETITIONER:
N.K.VALLIKANNU
AGED 63 YEARS
SON OF KUTTALAM PILLAY,
NO 40, V.O.C STREET,
VADASSERY, NAGERCOIL PIN 629001
BY ADVS.
SRI. ANAND
SRI.K.L.NARASIMHAN
SRI.A.MOHAMMED FAIZAL
SRI.N.KRISHNA PRASAD
RESPONDENT/S:
1 GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
PARK TOWN, CHENNAI, PIN 400003
2 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 400003
3 DIVISIONAL MANAGER
SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
TRIVANDRUM RAILWAY DIVISION
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695014
BY ADVS.
ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL
SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
03.12.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
W.P(C). 26356/2012
2
JUDGMENT
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, J.
The petitioner, who is stated to be a regular user of the railway passenger facility at the Nagercoil Town Railway Station has preferred this Writ Petition, styled as a Public Interest Litigation, seeking a direction to the Railway authorities to upgrade the facilities and passenger amenities at Nagercoil Town Railway Station, based on the assurance that is stated to have been given through Exts. P3 and P4 documents produced by the writ petitioner. It is the specific case of the petitioner that, at the Nagercoil Town Railway Station, the platform is at the same level as the rail and further, there is no adequate lighting facility or platform shelter that is provided for the benefit of the passengers using the railway station. A reference has been made to the manual issued by the Government of India in the Ministry of Railways, which details the passenger amenities in stations, to contend that it is obligatory for the Railways to provide the minimum facilities that have been indicated in the manual, in the various categories of stations, and the paucity of funds or other reasons cannot be cited for shirking away from the obligation to provide the minimum essential amenities at various stations.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents 1 and 3, wherein it is stated that the policy of the Ministry of Railways is to categorise the railway stations across the country based on the revenue earned at the said railway stations. It W.P(C). 26356/2012 3 is pointed out that, going by the revenue earned by the station in question, the Nagercoil Town Railway Station is categorised as a ' halt station', falling under category 'F' of the ranking given by the Railway administration, based on the earnings derived and operational nature of the station. A reference is made to the Annexure to the Passenger Amenities Manual to indicate that, in the case of category 'F' stations, the Railways is obliged only to provide for shade trees lining the platforms and there is no obligation to provide any shelter over the entire length of the platform. Similarly, it is also stated that while there is an obligation to provide lighting, this has in fact been provided for. As regards the level of the platform, it is stated that as per the policy of the Railways, the platform at 'F' category stations is to be only at the rail level and not higher. It is clarified, however, that inasmuch as the Nagercoil Town Railway Station is one that caters to MEMU Trains, the provision in the manual that deals with the necessity of having high level platforms wherever EMU trains are dealt with (Board's letter No.2006/LMB/2/121 dated 11.8.2006) would be considered by the Railways and appropriate action taken to ensure compliance with the manual. In response to the averments in the Writ Petition, it is specifically contended that the categorisation of railway stations, and prioritization in the matter of allocation of amenities based on categorisation, are all matters of policy, with which no interference is warranted in these proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. J.D. Suryavanshi [2011 KHC 5073] is relied upon to fortify the submission that, inasmuch as the courts do not have any specialised knowledge or technical skills, required for running the railway establishments, the courts should not interfere with the policy decision taken by the railways in connection with its administration.
W.P(C). 26356/2012 4
3. We have heard Sri. Anand, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. C.S. Dias, the learned Standing Counsel for Railways.
4. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances and the submissions made across the Bar, we find from the documents produced along with the counter affidavit of the Railways that the amenities presently available at the Nagercoil Town Railway Station have been provided based on the policy decision of the Railway Adminstration as reflected in the Passenger Amenities Manual. Going by the said manual, we find that as of now, considering the categorisation of the Nagercoil Town Railway Station as 'F' category station, the necessary amenities with regard to platform cover, lighting and platform height have been maintained. The only aspect which requires consideration, in our opinion, is the provision which indicates that wherever a station caters to an EMU train, the platform at that station should be at a high level, irrespective of the category of the station. Inasmuch as the said policy decision is one taken by the Railway Administration itself, we have no reason to believe that the administration would not give due consideration to the said aspect pertaining to the Nagercoil Town Railway Station, which admittedly caters to MEMU Trains as well.
5. Thus, while disposing this Writ Petition by finding that the amenities with regard to the platform cover and lighting at the Nagercoil Town Railway Station presently comply with the current policy of the Railway Administration, we deem it appropriate to direct the first respondent to consider the claim for increasing the height of the platform at the Nagercoil Town Railway Station in line with the stated policy as indicated in the W.P(C). 26356/2012 5 Board's circular No.2006/LMB/2/121 dated 11.8.2006. The first respondent shall take an appropriate decision in the matter within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
Sd/-
Hrishikesh Roy, Chief Justice Sd/-
A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar, Judge sou.
W.P(C). 26356/2012 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 DATED 18.1.2007 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION TURNING DOWN THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE STATION AT PARVATHIPURAM.
EXHIBIT P2(A)TO P2(K)- PHOTOGRAPHS SHOWING HARDSHIP FOR GETTING INTOT HE TRAIN FOR WANT OF PLATFORM AND FOR WANT OF SHELTER AT NAGERCOIL TOWN RAILWAY STATION.
EXHIBIT P-3 DATED 13.7.2011- TRUE COPY OF THE 52ND DIVISIONAL RAILWAY USERS CONSULTATION COMMITTEE MEETING-REPORT.
EXHIBIT P-4 DATED 2.2.2012 - TRUE COPY OF THE
COMMUNICATION SENT TO THE PETITIONER BY THE
THIRD RESPONDENT INFORMING THAT THE WORK IS
INCLUDED IN THE LOST OF APPROVED WORKS (LAW)
EXHIBIT P5 - TRUE COPY OF THE NEWS ITEM APPEARED IN THE
HINDU PAPER DATED 6.7.2012
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT R3-1- COPY OF TIME TABLE OF TRAINS FROM NAGERCOIL TO TRIVANDRUM CENTRAL AND TRIVANDRUM TO NAGERCOIL.
EXHIBIT R3-2- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.RB/L&A/005/2012 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD, NEW DELHI.
EXHIBIT R3-3 - COPY OF CATEGORIES OF STATIONS FOR PROVISION OF PASSENGER AMENITIES PROVIDED BY THE RAILWAYS.
EXHIBIT R3-4- COPY OF ANNUAL EARNINGS OF RAILWAY STATIONS UNDER TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, FOR THE YEAR 2011-12.
EXHIBIT R3-5- COPY OF LETTER NO.V/C.210/NJT/VOL.II ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN FAVOUR OF SRI. A.PONNIAH W.P(C). 26356/2012 7 EXHIBIT R3-6- COPY OF PLATFORM DETAILS- PASSENGER AMENITIES FOR NGERCOIL TOWN (HALT) STATION PROVIDED BY THE RAILWAYS.
EXHIBIT R3-7- COPY OF PLATFORM DETAILS-PASSENGER AMENITIES FOR NAGERCOIL TOWN (HALT) STATION PROVIDED BY THE RAILWAYS, AS ON 31.3.2012.
// TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE