Madras High Court
J.Mohamed Ali vs General Manager on 30 April, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 MAD 1551
Bench: S.Manikumar, Subramonium Prasad
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.04.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.MANIKUMAR
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD
W.P.No.13214 of 2019
and
WMP No.13336 of 2019
J.Mohamed Ali,
The President,
Puthupallivasal Executive Committee. .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. General Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai,
Tamil Nadu - 600 003.
2. Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Chennai.
3. Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway,
Commercial Branch,
Tiruchirapalli.
4. Senior Divisional Manager,
Southern Railway,
Tiruchirapalli. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
issuance of a writ of mandamus, forbearing the respondents from re-classifying
the Muthupet Railway Station from Block Station to Flag / Halt Station thereby
ensuring the people of Muthupet and its surrounding villages to avail all the
services and benefits of the Muthupet Railway Station as a Block Station
without affecting any of their existing rights.
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Conscious Ilango
For Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ramkumar
Standing counsel for Railways
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.) The President of Puthupallivasal, Executive Committee, has filed the instant writ petition for an appropriate writ, restraining the Railways from re-
classifying the Muthupet Railway Station from Block Station to Flag / Halt Station.
2. The petitioner states that Muthupet Railway Station, is in existence from 1906 and the Station is on Karikudi Thiruthuraipoondi Line. The petitioner states that Muthupet is a very old and renowned town having historical significance. It was a small seaport during the British period. It has a population of more than 80000 people and consists of 59 village panchayats.
The petitioner also states that there is a famous Dhargha-Andavar Sheikh Dawood Khamil Oliyullh. The Petitioner also states that there is a very famous Kovilur Manthirapureeswarar Temple. The petitioner states that it is buzzing town, having substantial amount of business. The petitioner also states that if the Railway Station is downgraded, then the passengers would not be able to book luggage, from the Railway Station. The petitioner also states that the Integrated Unreserved Ticker System (IUTS), will also not be available for the passengers.
http://www.judis.nic.in The petitioner would state that there is no well defined policy for 3 re-classifying the railway station and the instant railway station has been downgraded only on the whims and fancies of the respondents.
3. Mr.P.T.Ramkumar, learned counsel for the respondents would state that Muthupet Railway Station was earlier on a Meter Guage lane and it is now being converted to Broad Guage. He would state that train services is yet to begin in this line. A diesel engine with about 8 to 9 coaches only would first be run on this line. He also states that Railways would take all steps to ensure that passengers are not put to any inconvenience.
4. Learned counsel for the Railways placed reliance on a judgment dated 30.07.2014, passed by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, wherein this Court has not entertained petitions, challenging downgrading of railway stations. He therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.
6. It is well settled that Courts are not meant to run the government.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court, had time and again, reminded that the Judges must not try to perform legislative or executive function.
(i) In Narmada Bachao Andolan Vs. Union of India and Others, http://www.judis.nic.in 4 reported in {2000 (10) SCC – 664}, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-
“232. While protecting the rights of the people from being violated in any manner utmost care has to be taken that the Court does not transgress its jurisdiction. There is, in our constitutional framework a fairly clear demarcation of powers. The Court has come down heavily whenever the executive has sought to impinge upon the Court's jurisdiction.
233. At the same time, in exercise of its enormous power, the Court should not be called upon to or undertake governmental duties or functions. The Courts cannot run the Government nor can the administration indulge in abuse or non-use of power and get away with it. The essence of judicial review is a constitutional fundamental. The role of the higher judiciary under values of the Constitution and the rights of Indians. The Courts must therefore, act within their judicially permissible limitations to uphold the rule of law and harness their power in public interest. It is precisely for this reason that it has been consistently held by this Court that in matters of policy the Court will not interfere. When there is a valid law requiring the Government to act in a particular manner the Court ought not to, without striking down the law, give any direction which is not in accordance with law. In other words, the Court itself is not above the law.
234. In respect of public projects and policies http://www.judis.nic.in which are initiated by the Government the Courts should 5 not become an approval authority. Normally such decisions are taken by the Government after due care and consideration. In a democracy welfare of the people at large, and not merely of a small section of the society, has to be the concern of a responsible Government. If a considered policy decision has been taken, which is not in conflict with any law or is not mala fide, it will not be in public interest to require the Court to go into and investigate those areas which are the function of the executive. For any project which is approved after due deliberation, the Court should not refrain from being asked to review the decision just because a petitioner in filing a PIL alleges that such a decision should not have been taken because an opposite view against the undertaking of the project, which view may have been considered by the Government is possible. When two or more options or views are possible and after considering them the Government takes a policy decision it is then not the function of the Court to go into the matter afresh and, in a way, sit in appeal over such a policy decision.”
(ii). The above mentioned observations have been quoted with approval by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BALCO EMPLOYEES'UNION (REGD) Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS {2002 (2) SCC – 333}.
(iii). In DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ARAVALI GOLF CLUB AND ANOTHER http://www.judis.nic.in {2008 (1) SCC – 683}, in paragraphs Nos.17, 19, 20 and 22, the Hon'ble 6 Supreme Court held thus:-
“17. Before parting with this case, we would like to make some observations about the limits of the powers of the judiciary. We are compelled to make these observations because we are repeatedly coming across cases where judges are unjustifiably trying to perform executive or legislative functions. In our opinion this is clearly unconstitutional. In the name of judicial activism judges cannot cross their limits and try to take over functions which belong to another organ of the State.
19. Under our Constitution, the legislature, the executive and the judiciary all have their own broad spheres of operation. Ordinarily, it is not proper for any of these three organs of the State to encroach upon the domain of another, otherwise the delicate balance in the Constitution will be upset, and there will be a reaction.
20. Judges must know their limits and must not try to run the Government. They must have modesty and humility, and not behalve like emperors. There is broad separation of powers under the Constitution and each organ of the State – the legislature, the executive and the judiciary – must have respect for the other and must not encroach into each other's domains.
22. In Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India (vide AIR para 113 : SCC para 94), this Court observed that the modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action.
The same view has been taken in a large number of other decisions also, but it is unfortunate that many Courts are not following these decisions and are trying to perform legislative http://www.judis.nic.in 7 or executive functions. In our opinion adjudication must be done within the system of historically validated restraints and conscious minimisation of the Judges' preferences. The Court must not embarrass the administrative authorities and must realise that administrative authorities have expertise in the filed of administration while the Court does not. In the words of Neely VJ (Scc p.681, para 82).
“82.... I have very few illusions about my own limitations as a Judge ... I am not an accountant, electrical engineer, financier, banker, expect Judges intelligently to review a 5000 page record addressing the intricacies of a public utility operation.” It is not the function of a Judge to act as a superboard, or with the zeal of a pedantic schoolmaster substituting its judgment for that of the administrator.”
(iv). In COMMON CAUSE (A REGD. SOCIETY) VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS, {2008 (5) SCC – 511}, wherein at paragraph No.40, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, held thus:-
“The justification given for judicial activism is that the executive and legislature have failed in performing their functions. Even if this allegations is true, does it justify the judiciary in taking over the functions of the legislature or executive? In our opinion it does not: firstly, because that would be in violation of the high constitutional principle of separation of powers between the three organs of the State, and secondly, because the judiciary has neither the expertise nor the resources http://www.judis.nic.in 8 for this. If the legislature or executive are not functioning properly it is for the people to correct the defects by exercising their franchise properly in the next elections and voting for candidates who will fulfil their expectations, or by other lawful means e.g., peaceful demonstrations and agitations, but the remedy is surely not by the judiciary in taking over the functions of the other organs.”
7. It is also well settled that a High Court while exercising jurisdiction must not interfere with policy decisions.
"7. In Balco Employees Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 333], this Court held :
"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. (Emphasis supplied)"
8. In Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India [2003 (4) SCC 289] this Court was considering a challenge to the governments proposal to form new railway zones. The appellant therein placed some material to demonstrate that formation of new http://www.judis.nic.in railway zones may not increase the efficiency of railway 9 administration. This Court refused to interfere and observes :
"17...Even otherwise, to meet the demands of backward areas cannot by itself be inconsistent with efficiency. When the Railways is a public utility service, it has to take care of all areas including backward areas. In doing so, providing service, efficient supervision and keeping the equipment and other material in good and workable condition are all important factors.....
18....Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should re-examine to interfere with the same? The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same.
9. In Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain [2007 (4) SCC 737], this Court held :
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the http://www.judis.nic.in ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, 10 fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review."
8. The Railway administration caters to the needs of the entire country.
The railways are the best judge to classify the stations based on footfall of the passengers and also the goods that have to be loaded in the train. Every station cannot become a block station. The Courts must not interfere in such aspects.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India and others Vs. J.D.Suryavanshi, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 167, while dealing with a challenge, made by the Railways, to an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Madhya Pradesh High Court, passed the following instructions,
(i) the additional berths from Three Tier Sleeper & AC Class Coaches in all trains;
(ii) to complete the second track between Gwalior and Indore; and submit a progress report to court in respect of the work done in the last 25 years;
(iii) to reschedule the train timings of Bhind Indore Intercity Express (Train No.9319/9320) and Gwalior-Indore Express (Train No.1125/1126) taking into account various factors and not to stop the train at Parihar and Laxmibai Nagar;
(iv) to fill all vacant posts of coolies in all stations to avoid discomfort to passengers;
http://www.judis.nic.in
(v) to introduce additional 3 tier sleeper coaches in all trains 11 between Gwalior and Indore;
(vi) to introduce additional coaches (AC-I & AC-III) in Dehradun Express, additional coaches (AC I and AC-II tier) in Bhind-Indore Intercity Express and Gwalior-Indore Expresses (Train No.9319, 9320, 1125 & 1126);
(vii) to extend train route of Ujjain-Dehradun Express (Train No.4309 and 4310) upto Indore;
(viii) to re-schedule the timings of Intercity Express and Dehradun Express to enable more passengers can use them and;
(ix) to extend the route of Shuttle Express (Gwalior-Guna- Gwalior) and Indore-Maksi-Indore upto Indore and Gwalior respectively during day time."
observed as under.
"6. 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, 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 Railway 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 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 http://www.judis.nic.in 12 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 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."
10. As stated above, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court while passing the order dated 30.07.2014 [between P.K.Naarayanan & another vs. The Union of India] has placed reliance on the above mentioned decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
http://www.judis.nic.in 13
11. In view of the above, we do not see any merit in the writ petition.
Hence, the instant writ petition is dismissed. No Costs. Consequently, the connected writ miscellaneous petition is closed.
(S.M.K., J.) (S.P., J.) 30.04.2019 Index: Yes/No. Internet: Yes ars/dm To
1. General Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai, Tamil Nadu - 600 003.
2. Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai.
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Commercial Branch, Tiruchirapalli.
4. Senior Divisional Manager, Southern Railway, Tiruchirapalli.
http://www.judis.nic.in 14 S.MANIKUMAR, J.
AND SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J.
ars W.P.No.13214 of 2019 and WMP No.13336 of 2019 30.04.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in