High Court dismissed a PIL challenging the arrest of passengers from luggage coaches. The court held that allowing passengers in luggage coaches violates safety regulations and that officials enforcing these rules cannot be held liable for harassment. The petition lacking merit was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
pil.111.16.19.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 111 OF 2016
Sapan Shrivastava & Anr. ...Petitioners Versus General Manager, Central Railway & Ors. ...Respondents
Mr. Sapan Shrivastava, Petitioner No.1 is present in-person
Mr. T. J. Pandian for the Respondent Nos. 1 & 2
Mr. Akshay Sawant a/w Mr. V. S. Kapse for the Respondent No.4
CORAM : DR. MANJULA CHELLUR, C.J. & M. S. SONAK, J.
TUESDAY, 14th NOVEMBER, 2017
P.C. :
1/4
SQ Pathan
pil.111.16.19.doc
“B. It is most respectfully prayed that the court may issue :
a. Writ, Order or Direction in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent no. 1 & 2 stop arresting passengers travelling in luggage coach and removal of warning stickers.
b. Writ, Order or Direction in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 1, 2, 4 to identify responsible officers and staff for harassing more than 1 lac passengers with strict disciplinary action (Removal of service) and registration of criminal case under IPC 166, 409, 20B, 34, etc.
c. Be pleased to compensate the affected passengers by forming committee with minimum compensation of Rs. 5000 to each passenger at their registered address.
e. Any other orders as the Hon'ble Court may deed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case be also passed in favour of the petitioner in the interest of justice;
f. Cost of the present petition be also allowed in favour of the petitioner and against the Respondents.”
the petitioners have not understood that the action of the respondent Authorities is in the light of following the procedure how luggage coach and passenger coaches can be utilized. If the prayer (a) is allowed, we would be passing orders violating the procedure and the regulations. The luggage cabin or coach is only meant for carrying the luggage and if they
2/4
SQ Pathan
pil.111.16.19.doc
are allowed for the travel of the passengers, it would be nothing but a death trap sometimes, since there will not be facilities of a normal passenger coach, once the door of the coach is closed. There are no windows for passage of air and if passengers are allowed in such coaches with the doors open for free passage of air, it may lead to other problems like missing of the articles kept in the luggage coach, apart from suffocation, stampede, since there are no seats in the luggage coach. If the manufacturing of luggage cabin is not suitable for carrying the passengers and the procedure including the specification of the seats and the size of the cabins with the sitting arrangement is not complied with, then the Railways would be violating the safety measures. Therefore, the first prayer at (a) is nothing but directing the Department to proceed against the procedure contemplated, which cannot be allowed, since it violates the Rules and Regulations as well as for other reasons as mentioned above.
3/4
SQ Pathan
pil.111.16.19.doc
contemplated. Therefore, there cannot be any disciplinary action against the officials who have implemented the Rules and Regulations by putting stickers on the luggage cabin and by restricting the passengers to enter the luggage cabin. The question of paying compensation to such passengers who are affected by this, will not arise.
M. S. SONAK, J. CHIEF JUSTICE
4/4
SQ Pathan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a PIL challenging arrest of passengers from luggage coaches with arrest of officials for harassment is sustainable.
Whether directions to stop arrests violate railway safety regulations and rules.
Whether officials implementing safety rules can face disciplinary action or compensation claims.
Sapan Shrivastava & Anr.
General Manager, Central Railway & Ors.
DR. MANJULA CHELLUR
M. S. SONAK
As recorded by the court registry
Litigation brought on behalf of the public interest rather than a personal grievance, relaxing the usual rule of locus standi.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
