S.Keerthi Bhavani v. Union Of India
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.11.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.SANJAY V.GANGAPURWALA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY S.Keerthi Bhavani ..
Petitioner Vs.
1. Union of India rep. by the Secretary Ministry of Railway Rail Bhavan Rafi Marg New Delhi.
2. The General Manager O/o. The General Manager Southern Railway Head Quarters Park Town, Chennai.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager Trichy Division, Trichy.
..
Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to restore the
previous service rendered at Malliyam Railway Station to the public by reopening the railway service in Malliyam Railway Station. For the Petitioner : No appearance For the Respondents : Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar
ORDER
(Made by the Hon'ble Chief Justice) None appears for the petitioner. We have heard Mr.P.T.Ram Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. The present public interest litigation is filed with a prayer to restore the previous service rendered at Malliyam Railway Station to the public.
3. A counter has been filed by the respondents in the year 2019. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, it is suggested that on review of passengers from April 2017 to September 2017, 13 halt stations were identified as working with poor patronage and Malliyam
railway station was one of it.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that within a distance of 700 meters, another railway station is functioning. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. J.D.Suryavanshi [(2011) 13 SCC 167]. The Apex Court, in the said case, observed thus:
"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 Government or statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of roles has been voiced."
5. In the light of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed. It is for the Railway administration to take further decision as per the existing circumstances. There will be no order as to costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.38200 of 2018 is also dismissed. (S.V.G., CJ.) (D.B.C., J.) 03.11.2023 Index :
Yes/No :
Yes/No kpl To
1. The Secretary Ministry of Railway Rail Bhavan Rafi Marg, New Delhi.
2. The General Manager O/o. The General Manager Southern Railway Head Quarters Park Town, Chennai.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager Trichy Division, Trichy.
THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J (kpl) 03.11.2023