High Court
Case Details
PIL 36/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A.M. SAPRE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI (A.M.Sapre, CJ)
Legal Reasoning
The 3 writ petitioners (two businessmen and one practicing lawyer) claiming to be socially spirited persons and residents of Tezpur Town have filed this writ petition invoking extra ordinary jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 o f the Constitution in relation to PIL (Public Interest Litigation) for claiming following reliefs against the State and Railway administration. (cid:28) graciously pleased to :- (i) direct the Respondents, in particular the Respondents 1,2,5 and 6 to imm ediately upgrade the existing Meter Gauge Railway Track between Dekargaon to Tez pur Station (TZTB) to the Broad Gauge Line as part of the Rangapara-Tezpur brnch Line under the N.F. Railways’ Gauge Conversion Project from Rangia to Murkongse In the above premises, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be most lek; (ii) direct the Respondents, in particular the Respondents 1,2,5 and 6 to tak e all necessary steps for the improvement and renovation of the existing Tezpur Railway Station (TZTB); (iii) direct the Respondents to conduct a high-level enquiry into the existin g encroachment of the Railway lands on the 7.5 km stretch between Delargaon Stat ion and Tezpur Station, and to take all necessary steps to remove the same and p revent such encroachment in the future; (iv) roper. pass such other orders in the public interest as may be deemed fit and p AND In the interim, direct that the Respondents shall not finalise any decision to c lose the existing Tezpur Railway Station, and/or phase out the Dekargaon-Tezpur Meter Gauge Rail Track. (cid:29) Perusal of the averments made in the petition, so also the relief quoted above, would go to show that, in substance, the grievance of these three writ petitione rs is that the decision of the railway administration /state authorities to shif t the existing railway station of Tezpur to some other alternate place is neithe r for public good nor rational. The petitioners, thus, pray that the existing Ra ilway Station should continue to remain at the same place and continue to operat e from the existing place due to its historical background and secondly, it shou ld be modernized at the existing place itself rather than to shift it to some ot her place in the outskirts of city. Notice of this petition was issued to the respondents i.e. State and Railway adm inistration. They have filed their counter affidavit. The respondent Railway adm inistration has denied the case of the petitioners in toto. According to them, t he decision to shift the Railway Station is conceived in the interest of public at large. It is stated that it is backed by public at large also - such as, seve ral political organizations, associations, civil bodies of the area etc. They ha ve also given the reasons for its shifting to another place. So, the question, which arises for consideration in this petition is, whether re lief prayed for is capable of being granted and, if so, how and to extent? Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of the recor d of the case, we are afraid we can entertain this petition for grant of reliefs claimed therein. In our view, the reliefs claimed by the petitioners in this wr it petition are incapable of being granted to the petitioners in our extra ordin ary PIL jurisdiction. The question as to whether Railway Station should be constructed at (cid:28)A (cid:29) place or (cid:28)B (cid:29) place in any city?, or whether it should continue to remain at one place i. e. at the existing place or it should be shifted to some other place? or whether it should be modernized or not and, if so, how and to what extent and in what m anner and with what infrastructure?, or whether it should be closed/abandoned an
Legal Reasoning
d, if so, why? and lastly, how the new Railway Station should be constructed and with what infrastructure - whether by providing meter gauge or broad gauge and at what distance? etc. are essentially the questions which fall outside the purv iew of judicial scrutiny by the courts in its extra ordinary jurisdiction and ar e essentially administrative in nature and hence have to be decided by the exper ts in the concerned department of Government and their agencies. The role of th e court in such issues is almost negligible or we may say very limited. It is only when the action of the State and their authorities in such matter is found to be totally arbitrary with no logic behind it and when it has no rationa lity or when it is found to be totally perverse with no application of mind and which shocks the judicial conscience of the court on its mere looking or when it is found to be adversely affecting the interest of public at large or some prov isions of law in force or is found to contravene the policy made on such issues, the extra ordinary powers conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution can be invoked in appropriate cases to remedy the situation arising therefrom withi n the framework of law and to the extent permissible. This, however, does not ap pear to be a case of that nature. Perusal of the petition, as also the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, show that the petitioners are trying to give their suggestions as t o why the action contemplated by the respondents in respect of the Railway Stati on in question is not implementable and how and in what manner it should be impl emented. This, in our opinion, cannot be made subject matter of the PIL petition because neither the petitioners nor the courts are experts on the technical and administ rative issues arising in the case and their implementation. Secondly, it also do es not attract any of the parameters mentioned above so as to empower the court to invoke its extra ordinary powers. It must, in our opinion, be left to the dis cretion of the authorities concerned to ensure its implementation keeping in vie w the interest of State and public good. So far as the courts are concerned, at least, in the given set of facts, we do n ot find that it is a fit case for the court to interfere or /and set aside the i mpugned action or modify it at the instance of three public spirited persons, sp ecially, when we notice that large number of persons, organizations, political p arties, civil bodies etc. have supported the action as being just, proper and good for the public at large as averred in the counter affidavit of the respon dents (see Para 6 of counter ) and have requested the authorities to give effect to their decision. We feel inclined to accept the stand of the respondents in t heir counter and find no merit in the grievance raised by the petitioners. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in this writ petition, wh ich, thus, fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No cost.