Disposed¶26

Pune Pravasi Singh Thou Its Memebr v. Union of India Thr Its Railway Ministry and Ors.

Bombay HC21 Jan 2026WP/8681/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sinhagad Express 11009 11010 halt Talegaon Railway Station; Pune-Mumbai daily commuters; provision of halt a Railway Board policy matter; Bhusaval Express load and platform capacity; fresh representation to Chairman Railway Board within 10 days; cognizance within eight weeks; reasons if not feasible; writ petition disposed; Bombay High Court, 21 January 2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of with directions: petitioners to submit a fresh representation to the Chairman, Railway Board (respondent no.2) within 10 days, copying the General Manager, Central Railway and the Divisional Railway Manager, Pune, annexing prior representations; Railway Board to take cognizance within eight weeks and communicate reasons to the petitioners if the request is not feasible. ¶26

Pune Pravasi Singh Thou Its Memebr vs Union of India Thr Its Railway Ministry and Ors. — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Railways should provide a halt for Sinhagad Express Train No. 11009 and 11010 at Talegaon Railway Station for Pune-Mumbai daily commuters. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The request made by the petitioners falls completely within the ambit of the policy decision to be taken by the Railways, probably at the end of the Railway Board, New Delhi; the Court expected the grievance to be attended to and the Board to consider the representation in a positive manner.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

A fresh representation is to be preferred before respondent no.2, the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi, with copies addressed to the General Manager, Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus and the Divisional Railway Manager, Pune; other representations may be annexed.

¶21

Key takeaways

The representation is to be preferred within 10 days, and the Railways, specifically the Board (respondent no.2), is to take cognizance thereof within a period of eight weeks.ratio¶24
If it is not feasible to consider the request, the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioners, offering them an opportunity to take their grievance further.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction), Writ Petition No. 8681 of 2024, decided 21 January 2026 (Bharati Dangre & Manjusha Deshpande, JJ.): Daily Pune-Mumbai commuters (Pune Pravashi Singathna) sought a halt for Sinhagad Express Trains No. 11009 and 11010 at Talegaon Railway Station, along with consideration of representations for additional Express trains. Holding that the request falls entirely within the policy domain of the Railways and the Railway Board, New Delhi, the Court disposed of the petition, directing a fresh representation to the Chairman, Railway Board within 10 days (copies to the General Manager, Central Railway, CSMT and DRM, Pune), cognizance by the Board within eight weeks, and communication of reasons if the halt is not operationally feasible.

¶1

1/3 5 wp 8681-24.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 8681 OF 2024

¶4

Pune Pravashi Singathna Through its members

¶5

.. Petitioners

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India through its Railway Ministry and anr.

¶8

.. Respondents

¶9

Mr. Nitesh S. Nevshe with Shweta Nevshe for the petitioners Ms.Leena patil for respondent nos.1 to 4. Mr.M.M. Pable, AGP for the State.

¶10

CORAM :BHARATI DANGRE & MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, JJ DATED : 21^st JANUARY, 2026

¶11

P.C:-

¶12

1 The present Writ Petition is filed by the passengers/ commuters who travel from Pune to Mumbai on daily basis, and their request is for providing a halt of Sinhagad Express Train No. 11009 and 11010 at Talegaon Railway Station at Pune.

¶13

In addition to the grievance of the petitioner, the petitioner also contain a representation made by the Pune Bar Association to the General Manager, CST, making a similar request and requesting for starting an Express train, which can reach Mumbai at 9.30 a.m, and also starting of an Express train

¶14

Ashish

¶15

2/3 5 wp 8681-24.doc

¶16

between the two trains i.e. Koyna Express and Nagercoil Express and Sahyadri and Mahalaxmi Express.

¶17

The petitioners are agitating their grievance since 2019 and recently, on 19/3/2023, they preferred an application to the General Manager, CST, Mumbai, reiterating their grievance and also dealing with the comment offered by the SPM (COG) for the Chief Operation Manager’s Office, Mumbai, to the petitioner, informing them that the provision of halt is a policy matter pertaining to the Railway Board. However, due to the load on 11035/11026 (Bhusaval Express) of 19 boggies, whereas the platform capacity of Tlegaon is only for 17 boggies as well as the train scheduled between Lonavla and Pune, it is not operationally feasible to consider the request.

¶18

2 We quite see that the request made by the petitioner completely fall within the ambit of the policy decision to be taken by the Railways and probably, at the end of the Railway Board, New Delhi, but we can only expect the grievance of the petitioner to be attended to, as they have made a repeated demand and since we are of the view that, if there is a will, there is always a way, let the Board consider the representation of the petitioner in a positive manner, as it shall provide relief to large number of passengers, who commute between Pune and Mumbai, and the request shall deserve due consideration from the Railway.

¶19

Ashish

¶20

3/3 5 wp 8681-24.doc

¶21

3 Though there are repeated representations made on behalf of the petitioner in the past, but we expect a fresh representation to be preferred before the respondent no.2 Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi, and a copy of which shall be also addressed to the General Manager, Central Railway, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus as well as Divisional Railway Manager, Pune.

¶22

It is also open to the petitioners to annex other representations making such request, so the Railway shall feel pressing demand on behalf of the commuters/passengers, who are facing inconvenience to consider the request and if an halt is provided, it will ease their burden of daily travel.

¶23

4 Let the representation be preferred within a period of 10 days from today.

¶24

We expect the Railways and in specific, the Board i.e. respondent no.2, to take cognizance thereof within a period of eight weeks.

¶25

We expect the Chairman of the Railway Board to apply his mind to the representation and if at all, it is not feasible to consider the said request, the reasons shall be communicated to the petitioners, which will offer them an opportunity to take their grievance further.

¶26

With this direction, Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶27

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J)

¶28

(BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

¶29

Ashish

Pune Pravasi Singh Thou Its Memebr v. Union of India Thr Its Railway Ministry and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pune Pravasi Singh Thou Its Memebr v. Union of India Thr Its Railway Ministry and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Eversmile Properties Private Limited and Anr. vs the Union of India Thr Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change and Ors.

Ramesh Lakhpatrai Aggarwal and Anr. vs Reserve Bank of India and Ors.

Special Situation Advisors India Pvt. Ltd. vs Bank of India

Ajay Mahavir Gechand vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Mahavir Gechand vs State of Maharashtra

Mrs Vanabai Ram Ramchandra Patil vs State of Maharashtra