Disposed

Mangesh Rajaram Kapote v. the Union of India and Others

Bombay HC4 Jan 2019PIL/81/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public Interest Litigation challenging the rejection of a proposal to lay a pit-line at Chikalthana, Aurangabad, and seeking new trains from the station. The court dismissed the petition, finding the Railways' decision based on available facilities at nearby stations and future infrastructure plans to be valid.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no order passed requiring laying of pit-line or sanctioning new train origins at Aurangabad.

Mangesh Rajaram Kapote Vs the Union of India and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

pil81.18

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶5

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO.81 OF 2018

¶6

Mangesh Rajaram Kapote,
Age-46 years, Occu:Business,
A-9, Vrundavan Garden Apartments,
Jyotinagar, Aurangabad,
Mobile No.9423147095
[email protected]
Aadhar-2057 7438 0591

¶7

...PETITIONER
 VERSUS

¶8

1) The Union of India,
 Through the Secretary,
 Ministry of Railways,
 Rail Bhavan, New Delhi,

¶9

2) Railway Board, India,
 Through its Chairman,
 Rail Bhavan, New Delhi,

¶10

3) Senior Divisional Railway Manager,
 Nanded Division,
 South Central Railways,
 Railway Station, Nanded.
...RESPONDENTS

¶11

...

¶12

 Mr.A.B. Kadethankar Advocate for Petitioner.
 Mr.M.N. Navandar, Advocate for Respondent Nos.
 1 to 3.

¶13

...

¶14

pil81.18

¶15

¶16

CORAM: S.S. SHINDE AND
 R.G. AVACHAT, JJ.

¶17

 ORDER : 4TH JANUARY, 2019

¶18

ORDER :

¶19

1. This Public Interest Litigation is filed

¶20

with following substantive prayers:

¶21

“B. The respondent authorities be directed
to reconsider favourably the (Ann. F)
proposal Dt.18/04/2018 for laying down a
pit-line at Chikalthana, Aurangabad as
submitted by R. No.3;

¶22

C. It may be held that the decision by R.
Nos.1 and 2 to process the proposal
Dt.18/04/2018 submitted by Respondent No.3
at Ann. F, is arbitrary, un-thoughtful and
irrational;

¶23

D. The respondent authorities may kindly be
directed to take steps to lay a pit-line at
Chikalthana, Aurangabad at the earliest as
submitted by R. No.3 vide Ann.F.”

¶24

pil81.18

¶25

¶26

2.It is the case of the Petitioner that on

¶27

account of tourism hobby and interest, he chose
tourism as his professional career and carries his
professional activity under the name and style as
“Heramb Travels”. Besides his occupation, the
Petitioner is also involved in social activities
and services and had taken much efforts to suggest
Respondent authorities concerning improvement and
development in transportation and tourism about

¶28

the public demands, requisitions, improvements
etc. Taking into consideration the Petitioner's
contribution, he was nominated by the Respondent
authorities as “Member of Nanded Divisional
Railway Users Consultative Committee” (DRUCC), for
three years i.e. from 1st August, 2014 to 30th
September, 2017.

¶29

3.It is the case of the Petitioner that,

¶30

launching new train requires to make altogether

¶31

pil81.18

¶32

¶33

new and additional arrangement including arranging
the Locomotive and Bogies, time schedule on the
route,provisionforplatformsatthe
destinations. But extension of the trains already
in existence do not call for any changes in its
original structure. May it be a new train or
extension of existing train, a station requiring
such arrangement necessarily require a special
platform and line, which is called as 'Pit-line'.

¶34

Pit lines have a great impact on the Station's
capability of handling trains in so far
originating and terminating trains are concerned.
Considered to have a great impact on junction's
ability of handling trains, pit-line is basically
a facility for carrying out inspection and routine
maintenance work of carriage parts of railway.
Pit-lines used for inspection and routine
maintenance work of under carriage parts. More
over, it is used for all types of cleaning and
maintenance to make the compartment ready for next

¶35

pil81.18

¶36

¶37

journey. Pit-lines are washing lines with open
dumping pit at base, throughout the track. These
pit are utilized to drain out sewage water
(Washroom and Coach Interior Cleaning), through
Checking and Repairing Coach Base parts. In order
to make a station as originating station for new
trains or even for extending existing train route
up-to such station, a pit-line is necessary at
such station.

¶38

4.It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶39

pursuant to extreme need of new trains to
originate from Aurangabad, a proposal was moved
through Respondent No.3 to Respondent Nos.1 and 2,
on heavy demand of the public and the Divisional

¶40

Railway Users Consultative Committee, to lay a
pit-line at Chikalthana to facilitate new trains
originating from Aurangabad or such places close
to Aurangabad, however the aforesaid proposal has

¶41

been turned down by Respondent No.1, without

¶42

pil81.18

¶43

¶44

appreciating the true facts.

¶45

5.It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶46

Aurangabad falls within Nanded Division of South
Central Railways. Nanded Division extends up-to
Nagarsol towards Manmad Junction. Purna Junction,
Parbhani Junction, Jalna and Aurangabad are the
main railway stations in between Nanded and
Nagarsol. Beyond Nasgarsol, the same track leads
to Manmad which falls within Central Division of
Indian Railways. Manmad Junction connects trains
to main junctions like Bhusawal, Daund, Pune,
Nagpur etc., which are further connected to other
parts of the country in all directions. Hyderabad
is the Circle Head Office of South Central
Railway, whereas Nanded is its Divisional Office.
Nanded itself is not a railway junction, but in
between Nanded and Aurangabad two railway
junctions are in operation at Purna and Parbhani.

¶47

From Purna a track diverts to Hingoli and then

¶48

pil81.18

¶49

¶50

towards Khandwa, which is a bigger Junction
connecting other parts of the country. From
Parbhani, a track diverts to Parali-Bidar-

¶51

Vikarabad and further connects to Southern part of
the country. It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶52

although number of trains passes through
Aurangabad, still additional trains are required
for Bombay, Delhi, towards Karnataka- Bengaluru
and towards Nagpur leading further towards Eastern

¶53

and North Eastern India. On Page No.6 of the
Petition, the Petitioner has given list of as many
as 33 stations situated on Nanded-Manmad railway
route.

¶54

6.It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶55

Aurangabad is Divisional Headquarter of Marathwada
Revenue Division and it is the tourist capital of
Maharashtra. Aurangabad city is closely associated
with Jalna District. Both these places are having

¶56

old industrial sectors developed by the

¶57

pil81.18

¶58

¶59

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation
(MIDC). While Jalna has MIDC, Aurangabad is
associated with Waluj MIDC, Chikalthana MIDC,
Shendra 5-Star MIDC and Paithan MIDC. All these
industrial activities give rise to huge good
transportation as well as human transportation.
The Government of India has declared Aurangabad
and surrounding zone as a part of India's fastest
growing, high valued and extremely developed
industrial zone, which is named as “Delhi-Mumbai
Industrial Corridor” (DMIC). For the establishment
of this industrial corridor, thousands of acre
have been acquired and huge funds have been
poured by the Government. Number of people from
surrounding region who have Aurangabad is the only
option for rail connectivity, is growing day by
day. Under these circumstances, a wider and
efficient rail connectivity, for both cargo and
human transportation, is extremely needed for
Aurangabad. Therefore, availability of more trains

¶60

pil81.18

¶61

¶62

starting from Aurangabad is most and earnestly
required. Particularly, trains for Bombay, Nagpur
via Manmad, Bengaluru via Manmad, North-East
sector of the country, direct trains are needed to
meet the exigency of people at large. The said
exigency could be satisfied by launching new
trains and by extending the trains from the
nearest Junction to Aurangabad.

¶63

7.It is the case of the Petitioner that,

¶64

since long a heavy demand was being made to the
Respondent authorities for laying down a pit-line
at Aurangabad. Aurangabad has all infrastructure
for laying down the pit line like water, space,
shade, accommodation for the staff etc. Even if
there would be any deficiency in the required
infrastructure, that could be removed and all
infrastructure could be arranged at Aurangabad.
The considerable and worth demand was raised by

¶65

individual persons, some passenger organizations,

¶66

pil81.18

¶67

¶68

NGOs, and also by the bodies established by the
Respondent authorities.

¶69

8.It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶70

followingConsultativeBodieshavebeen

¶71

established by Respondent no.1 with a view to
affordmorefrequentopportunitiesfor

¶72

consultation between Railway Administration and

¶73

Railway Users, some matters relating to the

¶74

service provided by Railways and means of
improving the efficiency of such services:

¶75

(1)Railway Users Consultative Committees at
the Divisional Level (DRUCC).

¶76

(2)Zonal Railway Users Consultative Committee
at the Headquarters of each Railway.

¶77

(3)National Railway Users Consultative Council
at the Center.

¶78

9.It is the case of the Petitioner that

¶79

DRUCC represents the local users in the

¶80

territories served by the railway and consider

¶81

pil81.18

¶82

¶83

matters relating to:

¶84

(1)Provision of amenities in the area with
which the committee is concerned.

¶85

(2)Proposals regarding opening of new
stations within the jurisdiction of the
Committee.

¶86

(3)Arrangements regarding time tables.

¶87

(4)Improvementoftheservicesand
facilities provided by the Railways.

¶88

(5)Any subject of general public interest or
public convenience or such matters affecting
the services and facilities which hasb een the
subject representation by users, or which has
been referred to them for consideration by the
zonal Railway Users Consultative Council or by
the Administration.

¶89

10.It is further the case of the Petitioner

¶90

that he was nominated and appointed by the

¶91

Respondent authorities as Member of Nanded
Divisional Railway Users Consultative Committee.
During his tenure, the petitioner strenuously
insisted for and followed up the demand for Pit
Line at Aurangabad. Studies presentation was made
to the authorities to convince the requirement of

¶92

pil81.18

¶93

¶94

Pit-line and convenience to lay down the same at
Aurangabad. Even other DRUCC Members also took
efforts to demand the pit-line at Aurangabad.
Initially, Aurangabad as also Nagarsol Stations
were being considered for laying down PIT line.
However, as per the information rendered by the
then Divisional Railway Manager for Nanded
Division, Pit-line requires a lot of water for
cleaning and related activities. Aurangabad and
Nagarsol Stations allegedly did not have the
desired supply of water and therefore a new pit-
line has been proposed at Chikalthana. Referring
to Annexure-D filed with the compilation of the
Petition, it is the case of the Petitioner that,
consequent to continuous efforts made by the
Petitioner, DRUCC members, individuals, rail
passenger organizations, a preliminary proposal
was prepared by Respondent No.3. Survey was
conducted for the purpose of proposed pit-line.
Respondent No.3 was convinced for laying down a

¶95

pil81.18

¶96

¶97

pit-line at Chikalthana, and accordingly a proper
consolidated proposal was prepared and was
submitted to Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 by Respondent
No.3. The said proposal is a comprehensive
compilation containing the demand of pit-line,
technicalfeasibility,surveyreport,
infrastructure available at suggested site etc.
The Public Relations Officer of Respondent No.3
also issued a press note on 28th September, 2017,
thereby mentioning that a 'Pit-line' proposal is
submitted to Respondent Nos.1 and 2, sanction to
which was awaited.

¶98

11.It is the case of the petitioner that he

¶99

has filed an application to Respondent no.3 under
Right to Information Act for copy of the said
recommendation and he has received copies of the
proposal to lay PIT line at Chikalthana, survey
report regarding examining feasibility of Pit-
line at Chikalthana, and the latest status, which

¶100

pil81.18

¶101

¶102

are annexed at Annexure-F to the compilation of
the Petition. Survey report and feasibility
report, are comprehensive and thoughtful. A ground
survey was conducted to ascertain the feasibility.
Respondent No.3 has conducted the survey and
thereafterrecommended the proposal.The

¶103

recommendation is for laying down a pit-line for
20 coaches. The said proposal is in requisite
format and with adequate information. Respondent
No.3 is the only authority which could decide
feasibility of any site for the purpose of laying
down the pit-line. The proposal is submitted under
the heading of “Construction of new pit line of 20
coach length as per CAMTECH design, stabling line,
staff quarters and service building at Chikalthana
Station of Nanded Division”, in the budget year
2018-19 with vetted cost of Rs.11,89,86,000/-.
The justification clause and finance remarks are
also positive to the proposal and the report shows
that it has also approval of the General Manager.

¶104

pil81.18

¶105

¶106

It is the case of the Petitioner that it was
expected that the said proposal would be
favourably considered by Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
However, surprisingly, Respondent No.1 has dropped
the said proposal submitted by Respondent No.3 to
lay down a pit-line at Chikalthana. Hence this
Public Interest Litigation is filed challenging
the said decision of Respondent No.1.

¶107

12.Learned counsel appearing for the

¶108

Petitioner submits that Respondent No.3 was
convinced for laying down a pit-line at
Chikalthana and accordingly a ground survey was
conducted to ascertain the feasibility and
thereafter Respondent No.3 has recommended the
proposal. It is submitted that despite of extreme

¶109

and genuine necessity to have a pit-line at
Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Respondent No.1 has
wrongly turned down the said proposal. The
reasons mentioned in the letter rejecting the

¶110

pil81.18

¶111

¶112

proposal are not sustainable and keeping in view
the factual position. It is submitted that when
the appropriate Authority has conducted ground
survey and after studying feasibility, submitted
the proposal, the action on the part of Respondent
Nos.1 and 2 in rejecting the said proposal on the
point of feasibility, is absolutely unjustified.
Learned counsel submits that Aurangabad has ample
source and availability of water, space for
platform and line, accommodation of the requisite
staff and there are no any deficiencies or

¶113

shortfallatChikalthana,andtherefore
considering the heavy railway traffic at
Aurangabad, the proposal for laying down a pit-
line at Chikalthana, Aurangabad ought to have been
favourably considered and accepted by Respondent
No.1. Learned Counsel therefore prays that the
Petition deserves to be allowed.

¶114

13.On the other hand, learned counsel

¶115

pil81.18

¶116

¶117

appearing for Respondents, referring to the reply
filed on behalf of the Respondents, submits that
as per the procedure laid down, the proposal for
laying down pit-line was prepared on public demand
and forwarded to Respondent No.2. It is submitted

¶118

that as per the relevant guide lines and
procedure, the said proposal was examined by the
Ministry of Railways and it came to the conclusion
that the said proposal is neither feasible nor
financially viable. It is submitted that the
Railway Minister has also turned down the said
proposal, being not feasible. Learned counsel
further submits that the issues brought out by the
Petitioner are merely of the geographical
information of Nanded Division as a whole and the
same does not justify for introduction of new
trains exclusively from Aurangabad Station. It is
submitted that as on date the trains are in active
operation connecting Aurangabad with the other

¶119

cities like Mumbai, Ahmedabad, New Delhi,

¶120

pil81.18

¶121

¶122

Secunderabad, Pune, Rameshwaram, Shirdi, Nagpur,
Kolhapur, Narsapur, Chennai Jaipur etc. The
introduction of new trains to serve the public of
Aurangabad does not necessitate to start the same
from Aurangabad itself. It is submitted that the
trains starting from other railway stations passes
through Aurangabad railway station, and connect
the city with other parts of the country, and such
passing through trains equally serve the public at
Aurangabad. It is submitted that exclusive quotas
are ear-marked for the public at Aurangabad in the
trains like in Devagiri Express, Jan-Shatabdi
Express and Dhanbad Express etc. The need of

¶123

public at Aurangabad has been taken into

¶124

consideration along with the interest of other
parts of Marathwada Region. Therefore, it is

¶125

submitted that there is no substance in the Public
Interest Litigation. It is submitted that present
rail connectivity and related rail facilities are

¶126

sufficient to cater the growing needs of

¶127

pil81.18

¶128

¶129

Aurangabad city. Learned counsel submits that in
order to run more number of trains, it needs
double line, electrification etc. and in this
direction the Respondents are making efforts for
bringing double line and electrification and even
the survey work for double line is completed.

¶130

14.Learned counsel further submits that

¶131

introduction of new trains is a continuous process
based upon various factors. The present operation
of trains from Aurangabad is adequate and any
increase in demand is always looked into by the
Respondents from time to time. Aurangabad Railway
Station is situated in the mainline between
Manmad-Nanded and does not serve as a Junction
Point and Terminal/Terminating Point. Hence, new
trains are started from major cities by ensuring
that they passes through Aurangabad, serving
largest interest of Marathwada Region. It is
further submitted that, as public organization the

¶132

pil81.18

¶133

¶134

Railway receives several representations regarding
introduction of new trains and extension of trains
from almost every station. However, after taking
into consideration the financial viability and
full justification the proposals are accepted, as
it involves spending of public money.

¶135

15.Learned counsel further submits that a
proposal for laying down a pit-line at
Chikalthana, Aurangabad was minutely considered by
the Respondents in its 68th Zonal Railway Users
Consultative Committee Meeting, and after
verifying all aspects of the proposal regarding
its need, justification, viability and expenses, a
policy decision has been taken by the Respondents
that, a new pit-line at Chikalthana, Aurangabad is
not required in view of availability of adequate
facilities at Nanded and Purna, which are
sufficient for the present level of traffic. It is
submitted that near Aurangabad railway station, at

¶136

pil81.18

¶137

¶138

Nanded and Purna stations, pit-lines are

¶139

available and the same are sufficient for present
railway traffic. Learned counsel therefore submits
that there is no substance in the Petition and
the same is liable to be rejected.

¶140

16.We have heard learned counsel appearing

¶141

for the Petitioner and learned counsel appearing
for the Respondents. With their able assistance,
we have perused the averments in the Petition,
grounds raised therein, and the reply filed on
behalf of the Respondents.

¶142

17.Upon careful perusal of the reply filed
on behalf of the Respondents, it reveals that on
receipt of the proposal for laying down a pit-line
at Chikalthana, Aurangabad, the same was carefully
examined by the Respondent Authorities, in view of
the relevant procedure laid down and guidelines
framed thereunder. The Respondent authorities have

¶143

pil81.18

¶144

¶145

also taken into consideration the fact that pit-
line facilities are available at Nanded Station
and Purna Station and both the said stations are
not far away from Aurangabad Station. The
Respondent authorities have also taken into
consideration the facts such as, feasibility and
financial viability of the said proposal. It
further reveals from the reply that the said
proposal was considered by the Respondent
authorities in its 68thZonal Railway Users
Consultative Committee Meetingand after
considering all aspects, a policy decision has
been taken by the Respondents that a new pit-line
at Chikalthana is not required in view of the
availability of adequate facilities at Nanded and
Purna stations, which are sufficient for the
present level of railway traffic.

¶146

18.It is true that Respondent No.3 –

¶147

Senior Divisional Railway Manager, Nanded Division

¶148

pil81.18

¶149

¶150

has recommended and forwarded the said proposal
for laying down pit-line at Chikalthana,
Aurangabad. But, it is significant to note that
ultimate authorities are Respondent Nos.1 and 2,
who have to take the policy decision after
considering all aspects of the matter. The
Respondentauthoritieshavetakeninto

¶151

consideration the fact that looking to the number
of railways which have its starting point at
Aurangabad, and number of railways which passes
through Aurangabad Station, presently it is not
necessary to have a pit-line at Aurangabad. Thus,
at present we are satisfied with the affidavit
filed on behalf of the Respondent authorities. It
is for the railway authorities to consider the
need to have pit-line at particular place. It is
pertinent to note that the decision of railway
authorities, not to have pit-line at Chikalthana,
Aurangabad, can always be reviewed by the said
authorities in future, if situation demands. In

¶152

pil81.18

¶153

¶154

future, if need arises, it would be open for the
Petitioner to revive the prayer in case of change
of present scenario.

¶155

19.So far as the prayer of the Petitioner in
respect of requirement of new trains from
Aurangabad Station, it is specifically mentioned
in the reply filed on behalf of the Respondents
that, present operation of trains from Aurangabad
is adequate and any increase in demand will be
looked into by the Respondents from time to time.
The reply also reveals that, in order to run more
number of trains, double line, electrification
etc. is necessary and the Respondents are making
every efforts for bringing double line,
electrification and even survey work for double
line is also completed.

¶156

20.In view of the discussion made herein

¶157

above, considering the reply filed on behalf of

¶158

pil81.18

¶159

¶160

the Respondents, in our opinion, no further orders
are necessary in this Public Interest Litigation.
Hence the Public Interest Litigation stands
disposed of.

¶161

[R.G. AVACHAT, J.] [S.S. SHINDE, J.]

¶162

asb/JAN19

Mangesh Rajaram Kapote v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangesh Rajaram Kapote v. the Union of India and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ratan Soli Luth of Nashik Vs State of Maharashtra through the Principal Secretary and Ors.

Sudhir Ramchandra Karale Vs Joint Charity Commissioner, Pune Div. Pune and Ors.

Vakil R. Karra Vs State of Maharashtra, through Principal Secretary, Home Dept and Ors.

Ambadas Ramkishan Akulwad Vs the Union of India and Others

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Shri. R. R. Tripathi Vs Union of India Thru Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.

Grampanchayat Alsand, through Its Sarpanch Vs Panchayat Samiti, Khanapur and Ors.

Rekha Mallikarjun Kanmande and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The State of Mah Vs Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors.

The State of Mah Vs Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors.

Dalbirsingh Lalsingh Paharedar and Ors. Vs the State of Mah