Madras High Court
B.Karthee vs The General Manager Of Southern Railway on 13 October, 2017
Bench: M.Venugopal, Abdul Quddhose
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 13.10.2017
Orders Reserved On : 12.10.2017
Orders Pronounced On: 13.10.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
W.P.(MD) No.18847 of 2017
B.Karthee .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The General Manager of Southern Railway,
First Floor, NGO main building,
Southern Railway,
Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
2.Senior Railway Divisional Manager,
Divisional Office, Southern Railways,
Mapalayam,
Madurai - 625 016. .. Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents to take
immediate action to re-annex the general compartment coaches as before 11th
day of September, 2017 in Vaigai Super Fast Express and Pallavan Super Fast
Express within a time stipulated by this Court.
!For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani
For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar
Standing Counsel
:ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.VENUGOPAL, J.] The Petitioner has preferred the present writ of Mandamus seeking for passing of an order by this Court in directing the Respondents to take immediate action to re-annex the general compartment coaches as before 11th day of September, 2017 in Vaigai Super Fast Express and Pallavan Super Fast Express within a prescribed time.
2.No counter is filed on behalf of the Respondents.
3.By consent the main Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
4.According to the Petitioner, he is a public spirited citizen and he read News Column published in ?Tamil Hindu? relating to the fact of mixed response for removal of unreserved coaches in Vaigai Superfast Express and Pallavan Superfast Express trains. In fact, the News Column captioned as 'itif uapypy; bghJg;bgl;o Kd;gjpthf khw;wk;.'
5.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner after reading the afore stated News column in 'Tamil Hindu', dated 09.09.2017, went to Madurai and Karaikudi Railway station and saw the said trains along with his friend Mr.Vignesh and confirmed about removal of one unreserved coach from Vaigai Superfast Express and Pallavan Super Fast Express, which are premier express trains connecting Southern parts of Tamil Nadu with capital City of Tamil Nadu. The Vaigai Superfast Express and Pallavan Super Fast Express trains are operated with only one unreserved general compartment coach and Southern railway had replaced unreserved coach with a reserved coach from 11.09.2017.
6.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner brings it to the notice of this Court that on 15th August, 1977, 40 years ago Vaigai Express began its inaugural journey from Madurai to Chennai Egmore. Further, the Pallavan Superfast Express train is operated by the Southern Railway and its service connects the cities of Chennai to Karaikudi via Trichirappalli and the said train has been rendering service to the people for 33 years.
7.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner strenuously contends that replacing an unreserved general Second-Class Coach with a second-class chair car (Reserved) in Vaigai Superfast Express and Pallavan Superfast Express trains would severely affect the Economically Backward people who travelled in unreserved coaches. That apart, passengers in unreserved coaches already travelled in pathetic conditions, sitting in the aisles and near to the toilets because of unavailability of adequate seating. Furthermore, large numbers of people from Southern area of Tamil Nadu were dependent on trains to travel Chennai for various reasons (including employment, Medical treatment and Education) and that the Southern Railway had reduced the number of unreserved coaches in Pandian Superfast Express, when it was upgraded with the new coaches.
8.The Learned counsel for the Petitioner contends that the passengers and political parties in Madurai submitted repeated representations before the higher officials of the Southern Railway to annex general coach and conducted agitation for reannex the general compartment coach in Vaigai and Pallavan super fast Express trains. But no fruitful steps taken for rectifying the grievance of the unreserved general compartment passengers.
9The Learned counsel for the Petitioner proceeds to point out that on 03.10.2017, the Petitioner narrated the afore stated facts and send detailed representations addressed to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 requesting them to take immediate action to re-annex the general compartment coaches as before 11th day of September 2017 in Vaigai Express and Pallavan Express forthwith, but since the said representation has not been considered by the Respondents, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition in Public Interest.
10.Lastly, it is the contention of the Learned counsel for the Petitioner that only in the festival season, but all times, the people living below poverty line and vendors used to prefer the general unreserved coach, for the reason that the train fare for the Unreserved General compartment from Chennai to Madurai in Pandian super fast express is only 165 rupees and it reaches the destination with less then eight hours. However, the private buses charging nearly Rs.1000/- for this distance and the train fare for unreserved general coach in Pallavan express for travel from Trichy to Chennai is only Rs.126/-. Furthermore, around 250 passengers used to travel in general compartment at a time, during festival time the number of passengers will get multiplied.
11.Conversely, it is the submission of the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents that it is the fact that one coach out of five unreserved coaches is replaced with reserved coach by Vaigai Express/Pallavan Express, since the reservation accommodation got decreased consequent to the replacement of half pantry car with full pantry car and this was due to non availability of a fit half pantry car to replace the existing half pantry car which became unfit for running.
12.The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that now the Vaigai Express/Pallavan Express are operated with four general unreserved coaches and two general unreserved coaches (SLRD) for ladies and physically challenged and that the plea of the Petitioner is that the train is running with one unreserved coach is incorrect one.
13.The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents contends that the Pallavan Express was extended to run between Chennai-Karaikudi from 01.09.2013 and at present four general coaches with seating capacity of 90 each and two SLRD coaches with 16 seats for physically challenged persons and 40 seats for ladies are available. Apart from that, the change in composition was done with effect from 11.09.2017 and till date, no representation has been received at Headquarters in this regard.
14.The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents proceeds to point out that the fare by Vaigai express from Madurai to Chennai to travel by unreserved coach is Rs.165/- and by reserved second class coach is Rs.180/- and the difference is Rs.15/-. Besides the above, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents comes out with a plea that the pantry car, which was running till 10.09.2017, was having half coach as pantry car and half coach for reserved passengers had become unfit for further service and since half pantry car coach was not available, this was replaced with full pantry car, not having any passenger accommodation.
15.Continuing further, the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents submits that to accommodate the reserved capacity lost due to this replacement of coach, one of the five unreserved coaches was replaced by a reserved coach and that the train has a huge demand for reserved accommodation with an average of 140 wait-listed passengers not securing accommodation.
16.The Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents relies on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UNION OF INDIA v. J.D.SURYAVANSHI reported in AIR 2011 SC 3605, wherein it is observed and laid down as under:-
"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. 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 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. 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. Courts, bureaucracy and political leaders should give up the tendency to compel or pressurize the Railway administration to cater to only parts of the country particularly to the State or area to which they belong. Any such attempt to promote only regional interests would affect the national interest. The Railways should have the freedom and independence to grow, develop, improve and serve the nation."
17.Moreover, in the aforesaid decision, at paragraph No.10 (page 3069), it is observed as under:-
"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.?
18.This Court has heard the Learned counsel for the Petitioner and the Learned Standing Counsel for the Respondents and noticed their contentions.
19.In Law, the object of 'Judicial Review' is to ensure that a person receives fair treatment. In reality, 'Judicial Review' is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner, in which, the decision was arrived at by the concerned Authority. Suffice it for this Court to point out that 'Judicial Review' is concerned with the 'decision making process'.
20.It is to be borne in mind that 'every matter of Public Interest or Curiosity' cannot be a cementing factor for filing of a Public Interest Litigation. It cannot be brushed aside that a Court of Law is not intended to, nor it should run the administration of the country. In this connection, it is pertinent for this Court to point out that only when there is a breach of relevant Statutory Provisions or Constitutional Provisions or non- compliance of either Statutory or Constitutional duties by the State concern, a Court of Law can step in/interfere. But in the present case, none of the contingencies arise, in the considered opinion of this Court.
21.In the upshot of detailed discussions and over all assessment of the facts and circumstances of the present case, in an integral manner, this Court, comes to an inescapable conclusion that it cannot interfere in the subject matter in issue of the present Writ Petition, wherein a direction was sought for by the Petitioner in directing the Respondents to take immediate action to re-annex the general compartment coaches as before 11th day of September, 2017 in Vaigai Super Fast Express and Pallavan Super Fast Express trains, within the time to be determined by this Court. To put it succinctly, making a plea before the Court of Law to interfere in the functioning of 'Railway Administration' by filing the present Writ Petition, is certainly impermissible in Law. Viewed in that perspective, the Writ Petition fails.
22.In fine, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.
To:
1.The General Manager of Southern Railway, First Floor, NGO main building, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.
2.Senior Railway Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Southern Railways, Mapalayam, Madurai - 625 016..