Vishwanand Paswan v. The Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11167 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.
Vishwanand Paswan Son of Jadunandan Paswan, Resident of Station Chowk Araria R.S. P.S.- Araria R.S., District- Araria. 2.
Suraj Kumar Patewa Son of Jagdeo Prasad Patewa, Resident of Station Chowk Araria R.S. P.S.- Araria R.S., District- Araria. 3.
Sunil Paswan Son of Jaldhari Paswan, Resident of Station Chowk Araria R.S. P.S.- Araria R.S., District- Araria.
4.
Sanjay Kumar Yadav Son of Suresh Yadav, Resident of Station Chowk Araria R.S. P.S.- Araria R.S., District- Araria. 5.
Md. Muslim Hussain Son of Md. Fajilat, Resident of Rahikpur, Ward No.2, P.S.- Araria R.S., District- Araria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The Union of India through the Chairman cum Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 2.
The Chairman cum Chief Executive Officer, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
3.
The Chief Public Information Officer IIIrd, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
4.
The Director (Planning), Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi. 5.
The General Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Malegaon, Guwahati. 6.
The General Manager (Construction), North East Frontier Railway, Malegaon, Guwahati.
7.
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), North East Frontier Railway, Malegaon, Guwahati.
8.
The General Manager, East Central Railways, Hajipur (Bihar). 9.
The Chief Administrative Officer, East Central Railways (Construction Organization), Mahendru Ghat, Patna.
10.
The Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction), East Central Railways, Darbhanga.
11.
The Divisional Rail Manager, North East Frontier Railway, Katihar. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Raj Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr. Brajesh Kumar Pandey, C.G.C.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.11167 of 2025(4) dt.15-12-2025 2/3 (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 15-12-2025 The present writ application has been filed in the form of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) for the following reliefs: "i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction restraining the respondents to not change earlier sanctioned Araria-Supaul New Railway Line (Total distance-92 kilometers) have been sanctioned by the Railway Board in the orange book of 2008-09 under plan head 11 with an anticipated cost of Rs. 304,41,00,000/-.
ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents to not change sanctioned map of proposed new line between Araria-Supaul i.e.
sanctioned by Railway Board in the year, 200809. iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents authority to continue the Supaul Araria New Railway Line in original way which is sanctioned by the Railway Board.
iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding the respondents authority to stop the ongoing work of Supaul Araria Court New Railway Line at the place of Supaul Araria Railway Line which was sanctioned.
v) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction granting such other relief/reliefs, the petitioners would be found entitled to, on the facts and in the circumstances of this case."
Patna High Court CWJC No.11167 of 2025(4) dt.15-12-2025 3/3
2. Upon perusal of the grievance raised in the writ application and the materials available on record, it appears that the matter relates to a policy decision taken by the Railway authorities on the basis of expert opinion. It is well settled that the Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, does not ordinarily interfere with policy decisions of the authorities unless the same are shown to be arbitrary, illegal or in violation of statutory or constitutional provisions.
3. In the present case, no such arbitrariness or illegality has been demonstrated to warrant interference by this Court
4. Accordingly, we find no reason to interfere with the policy decision taken by the respondent authorities and the writ application stands disposed of.
5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, ACJ) (Alok Kumar Pandey, J) Nilmani/ AnushkaU