Disposed

K.P.Purushothaman Nair v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Bombay HC18 Sept 2024PIL/61/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Public interest litigation sought a mandamus for a senior-citizens' compartment in Mumbai local trains. Railways stated in affidavit that one coach per train would be modified for senior citizens within about two years of work order. Court disposed of the petition, hoping the work order issues immediately and directing Central Railway to comply with its 13 July 2023 circular.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed; direction to Central Railway to comply with paragraph 5 of circular dated 13.07.2023 allowing senior citizens entry to the luggage compartment; expectation that rake-modification wo

K.P.Purushothaman Nair vs the Union of India and 3 Ors. — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

17-PIL.61.2024

¶2

Jvs.

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 61 OF 2024

¶5

K. P. Purushothaman Nair } Petitioner

¶6

Versus The Union of India & Ors. } Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prateek Pansare i/b. MZ & Associates for petitioner.

¶8

Ms. Shehnaz V. Bharucha with Mr. D. P. Singh and Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents.

¶9

Digitally signed by JAYANTVISHWANATH JAYANTVISHWANATHSALUNKE SALUNKE Date: 2024.09.19 15:05:03 +0530

¶10

CORAM: DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ. & AMIT BORKAR, J.

¶11

DATE: 18^th SEPTEMBER 2024

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1. Heard Mr. Pansare, learned counsel representing the petitioner along with the petitioner himself who is also present in Court and Ms. Bharucha, learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶14

2. This PIL petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a mandamus to the respondents directing them to consider providing one compartment with separate entrance for senior citizens in local trains in Mumbai.

¶15

3. Responding to this PIL petition, an affidavit in reply has been filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it has been stated that decision has been taken to provide one coach in each local train in Mumbai exclusively for use of senior citizens. It has also been stated in the said affidavit that the same would

¶16

¶17

17-PIL.61.2024

¶18

require modification in 105 rakes over Western Railway and 155 rakes in Central Railway, which will be done without hampering the existing train services and it will take around two years from the date of issue of work order and once the said modification in the rakes is done, the same will be available for senior citizens. The relevant paragraph no. 5(v) of the affidavit in reply is extracted hereinbelow: -

¶19

“5. Submissioni. ..... ii. ..... iii. ..... iv. ..... v. It is pertinent to mention here that the said modification would require in 105 rakes over Western Railway and 155 rakes over Central Railway, which will be done gradually without hampering the existing train services & it will take around 02 years from the date of issue of work order & once the said modification is done in individual rakes, the same will be available for senior citizens in services by such modified rake/s” .

¶20

4. In view of the aforesaid decision as reflected from the affidavit filed by the respondents, the prayer made in this PIL petition has substantially been granted, however, on a query as to whether work order, as described in paragraph 5(v) of the affidavit in reply filed by the respondents, has been issued or not, no clear answer comes-forth from the learned counsel representing the respondents.

¶21

5. In the aforesaid view of the matter, we dispose of this PIL petition while putting our appreciation on record regarding the decision taken by the Railways, with, however, a further hope and trust that the work order for modification of the requisite number of rakes shall be issued immediately and the entire work shall be completed within two years from the date such work order is issued.

¶22

¶23

17-PIL.61.2024

¶24

6. Our attention has been drawn by learned counsel for the petitioner to paragraph 5 of the circular/letter dated 13^th July 2023 issued from the office of Principal Chief Commercial Manager, Central Railway, relevant part of which is extracted hereinbelow: -

¶25

“5. Conversion of Luggage compartment, if approved by Board requires minimum one year from the date of LOA. In the mean time, this Railway is of the opinion that middle luggage compartment (6^th Coach) may be earmarked for separate compartment (Separate entry/exit) with six seats which will be increased by further seven seats after modification in seating arrangements in a phased manner. The seats which are currently reserved for senior citizens in 14 numbers in two compartments will be released for general passengers, which practically are not accessible and usable by senior citizens due to peak hours crowd.” .

¶26

7. It has been informed by learned counsel for the petitioner that the senior citizens are not being allowed entry in the luggage compartment (6^th coach) in the local trains as per the decision contained in paragraph 5 of the circular/letter dated 13^th July 2023.

¶27

8. It is beyond comprehension as to why, despite taking such decision, the benefit to the senior citizens to travel in the luggage compartments is not being given. We, therefore, direct that if there is no other impediment, the Central Railway managing the local trains in Mumbai shall ensure compliance of the said decision contained in paragraph 5 of the circular/letter dated 13^th July 2023.

¶28

9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the PIL petition is disposed of.

¶29

(AMIT BORKAR, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶30

K.P.Purushothaman Nair v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.P.Purushothaman Nair v. the Union of India and 3 Ors.

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Prabhakar Arvind Kharat and Anr. vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Cyril Samuel Dara vs State of Maharashtra

Ajitsingh Ghorpade vs the State of Maharashtra through Pincipal Secretary of Minister of Forest

Abhijeet Kantaram Kad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary (UD-1) Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Suhas Hari Pingle vs Union of India through Ministry of Health and Family Welfare

Abhijeet Kantaram Kad and Anr. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Prin. Secretary (UD-1) Urban Development Dept. and Ors.

Kamal Jagdish Singh vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

Popat Jagannath Jagdale Since Decd. Thr. Lrs and Anr. Vs Sampat Jagannath Jagdale and Ors.

Smt. Kamalabai Vijay Pawar and Ors. Vs Mallinath Alias Tamma Ramappa Masare

Suryakant Tukaram Salunkhe and Ors. Vs Vijay Sakharam Karande Since Deceased Throu. L.H. and Ors.

Sahyog and Company vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Harasanram Savaji Desai vs the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Gti Infotel Private Limited vs Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited through Chairman and Managing Director