Dismissed

Sundeep S/O Mr Radhakrishna and Sasikala Badana v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Another

Bombay HC17 Apr 2024PIL/46/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A PIL sought restoration of pre-Covid railway passenger concessions withdrawn on 19-3-2020, alleging withdrawal without Railway Board approval. The court found a duly approved Railway Board policy decision existed, noted a similar Apex Court decision, and declined to interfere in policy matters under Article 226.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sundeep S/O Mr Radhakrishna and Sasikala Badana Vs… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

2024:BHC-NAG:4428-DB

¶2

1 PIL-46-2023.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

Public Interest Litigation No.46 of 2023

¶5

[Mr. Sundeep S/o Mr. Radhakrishna and Sasikala Badana VERSUS Union of India, through the
Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and another]

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order
and Registrar's orders.

¶7

Petitioner in person.

¶8

Shri N.S. Deshpande, Deputy Solicitor General of India for Respondents.

¶9

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶10

DATE : 17thAPRIL, 2024

¶11

1. Heard.

¶12

2.In this Public Interest Litigation, the issue pertains to the restoration of
various concessions conferred by the Railway Authorities on the class of
passengers.

¶13

3.According to the petitioner, the withdrawal of such concessions by the
Railway Authorities is through an administrative fiat and without approval of the
Railway Board. The petitioner in such eventuality has claimed that the decision
of the Railway Authorities to that extent reflected in the order dated 19-3-2020
needs to be upset with a direction to the Railway Authorities to restore the
concessions as were existed pre-Covid period.

¶14

4.As far as the issue of restoration of concessions conferred by the Railway
Authorities are concerned, Shri N.S. Deshpande, learned Deputy Solicitor
General of India, while opposing the said prayer, would urge that it is the
Railway Board has taken the decision to withdraw such benefits. Once a policy
decision is taken by the Railway Board, the same is not open for interference.

¶15

2 PIL-46-2023.odt

¶16

He would draw support from the order passed by the Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.494 of 2023, decided on 28-4-2023, in the matter of M.K.
Balakrishnan Versus Union of India.

¶17

5.We have considered the claim putforth by the petitioner appearing in
person.

¶18

6.From the record, particularly Annexure R-9, the configuration of the
Railway Board can be noticed. The note-sheet of the Railway Board along with
the said document duly approved upto the Chairman of the Railway Board is
placed on record to demonstrate that a policy decision is taken by the Railway
Board to withdraw the concessions.

¶19

7. On perusal of the documents, which are produced on record, along with the reply filed by the respondents, we are satisfied that there exists a policy decision of the Railway Board to withdraw the concessions which were earlier conferred under various heads, including that of Senior Citizens, etc.

¶20

8.Apart from above, a similar issue came up for consideration before the
Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.494 of 2023, referred to above. The Apex
Court while dealing with the similar issue has observed that whether to confer or
withdraw the concessions by the Railway Authorities is a policy decision. Such
policy decision is not open for questioning unless it is demonstrated to be
arbitrary or in violation of fundamental or statutory right.

¶21

9. In our opinion, the issue sought to be canvassed by the petitioner is squarely covered by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decision.

¶22

3 PIL-46-2023.odt

¶23

10.The withdrawal of concessions by the Railway Authorities prima facie
appears to be a policy decision, which has not only having financial impact over
the operation of the Railways but also the limitation with which this Court is
required to exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in
the matter of challenge to policy matters.

¶24

11.That being so, we refuse to entertain this Public Interest Litigation thereby
causing interference in extra ordinary jurisdiction..

¶25

12. The Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.

¶26

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶27

 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶28

LANJEWAR

Sundeep S/O Mr Radhakrishna and Sasikala Badana v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sundeep S/O Mr Radhakrishna and Sasikala Badana v. Union of India, Thr. Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prof Dr. Nikhil D. Datar vs State of Maharashtra Thr the Chief Secretary and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Mrunal Shantaram Dholepatil vs the Maharashtra State Backward Class Commission and Ors.

Karmyogi Swargiya Dr Shivajirao Patil Nilangekar Taluka Eksangh Kruti Samiti Nilanga through vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others

Mangesh Bhaskar Mhatre vs Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation through Commissioner and Ors.

Conservation Action Trust and Anr. Vs Dahanu Taluka Environment Protection Authority and Ors.

Mohd Usman Shaikh vs Kansari Mata Adivasi Samajik Vikas Sanstha and Ors.

Shaikh Abdul Rahim Vs the State of Maharashtra and 4 Ors.

Shyamsundar Garg S/O Pooranchand Garg Vs Union of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt. of India, New Delhi Thr. Secretary

Prashant Bhanudas Shankarpure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy. (Construction), Public Works Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Prashant Bhanudas Shankarpure and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secy. (Construction), Public Works Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Bezubaan Public Welfare Trust, Thr. Trustee and Representatives, Hema Satyadarshi Chowdhari and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Principal Secretary, Dept. of Forest, Mumbai and Others

Mukul S/O. Madhukar Kinkar and Others Vs State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Department of Home, Mumbai and Another