Disposed

Dhanishtha Devendra Joshi v. General Manager, Western Railway

Bombay HC28 Feb 2024WP/3583/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Article 226 sought compensation for educational expenses and loss of one career year allegedly suffered by petitioner no. 1, a victim of the September 2017 Elphinstone Road railway stampede, whose earlier Railway Claims Tribunal award had been enhanced in a First Appeal. The Court held quantification of actual loss cannot be done in writ proceedings, disposed of the petition keeping

What did the court decide?

None; petition disposed with liberty to pursue appropriate remedy in law.

Dhanishtha Devendra Joshi Vs General Manager, Western Railway — Bombay HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

37.WP3583_2023.DOC

¶2

Vidya Amin

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 3583 OF 2023

¶5

Dhanishtha Devendra Joshi & Anr.

¶6

… Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

General Manager, Western Railway & Anr. …Respondents

¶9

Dr. Prakash K.Deshmukh for the petitioners.

¶10

_______________________ CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATED: 28 February, 2024

¶11

P.C.

¶12

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed praying

¶13

for the following reliefs:

¶14

“a) This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents and order them to pay compensation to the petitioners for the loss suffered by the petitioners towards the educational expenses of petitioner no. 1 and towards loss of one year of her carrier upon examining the supporting documents in relation to the said expenses as set out in the statement Exhibit-Q hereto.

¶15

b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the respondents be directed to deposit in this Hon’ble Court such amount as may be deemed fit and proper by this Hon’ble Court and to allow the petitioners to withdraw the said amount.

¶16

c) Interim and ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clause (b) be granted.”

¶17

The petitioner No.1 is claiming to be a victim of an unfortunate incident

¶18

of stampede which had taken place at Elphinstone Road Railway Station foot-

¶19

over bridge on 29 September 2017. The petitioner No.2 has approached the

¶20

Page 1 of 2 28 February, 2024

¶21

37.WP3583_2023.DOC

¶22

Railway Claims Tribunal, Mumbai Bench by filing Claim Application, which has been allowed by an order dated 1 May, 2018 in which the petitioner No.1 was granted compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- which has been received by petitioner No.2. The petitioner No.2 however challenged the order of the Railway Claims Tribunal by filing First Appeal, being First Appeal No. 72 of 2019, which was disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 28 February, 2023, wherein the Court considered the plea as raised by petitioner no.2 of the higher compensation to be paid to petitioner No.1 and while disposing of the First Appeal has observed that it will be open for the petitioner No.2 to approach appropriate Court by adopting appropriate proceedings for appropriate reliefs.

¶23

In our opinion, the prayer as made in the petition cannot be adjudicated in the proceedings of Writ Petition which would involve quantifying the actual loss suffered by petitioner No.1 as prayed for in prayer clause (a). We, accordingly, dispose of this petition keeping open all contentions of the petitioners and permit the petitioners to adopt appropriate remedy as may be available in law. No costs.

¶24

(FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.)

¶25

Page 2 of 2 28 February, 2024

¶26

Signed by: Vidya S. Amin Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 28/02/2024 20:33:10

Dhanishtha Devendra Joshi v. General Manager, Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanishtha Devendra Joshi v. General Manager, Western Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sitaram Ramkrushna Harak and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Department of Irrigation Thr. the Executice Engineer and Ors.

Pandu Exports vs the Union of India and 3 Other

Leena Suresh Tahilramani and Anr. vs Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory Authority

Gayatri Nangia Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Shiv Kumar Wadhwa Vs Directorate of Enforcement

Shrikrishna Narayan Londhe and Ors. Vs the State of Maha. Thr. Secretary Revenue and Forest Dept. and Ors.