Dismissed

Shri Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India

Delhi HC10 Dec 2018W.P.(C)/11694/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This PIL petition sought directions for railway safety measures, disaster management plans, and security. The Court held these were executive policy matters involving technical expertise and refused to grant mandamus, disposing of the writ.

What did the court decide?

None granted as the matter was held to be non-justiciable policy matter and disposed with liberty to approach Railway Administration.

Shri Salek Chand Jain Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

$~14

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 11694/2016

¶4

SHRI SALEK CHAND JAIN ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. J.K. Gupta, Adv.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr. J.K. Singh, Standing Counsel

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 10.12.2018

¶10

This petition invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court in the public interest litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed and the prayer made in the writ petition reads as under:

¶11

“a) That the Respondent may be directed to procure ultrasonic track flaw detections machines and further continuous track circuiting is also required on all tracks to detect rail fractures.

¶12

b) That the respondent may be directed to prepare Hospital Disaster plan in a situation like accidents, explosions, fire, flooding or earthquake as prescribed in Indian Railway Disaster Management Plan 2009 and further.

¶13

c) That the Respondent may be directed to implement the recommendations of High Level Safety Review Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Dr. Anil Kakodkar, Former Nuclear Scientist.

¶14

d) That the respondent may be directed to provide scanners

¶15

W.P.(C) 11694/2016

¶16

page 1 of 3

¶17

for checking of the heavy parcels at all railway stations of Delhi because there is no scanner for checking of heavy parcels in parcel departments.

¶18

e) That the Respondent may be directed to provide better connectivity of ring rail with frequency in Delhi and with proper safety arrangement with basic amenities facilities at ring railway stations.

¶19

f) That the respondent may be directed to eliminate unmanned level crossing and provide facilities for physical challenged passengers.

¶20

g) That the respondent may be directed to provide safety to the passengers specially in passenger’s area, (platforms & Concourse, waiting halls’ ticket counters, parcel/booking area, entrance to parking lots), and further may be directed to fill up all vacant post of safety and security category and ensure better crime control.

¶21

h) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may kindly be granted to the Petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice”

¶22

Respondents have filed a detailed counter affidavit and submit that taking note of various security measures and other issues involved in the matter including the statutory disaster management rules as are applicable to the Railway Administration they have taken action in the matter.

¶23

The petitioner wants this Court to issue direction in the nature of mandamus for taking various safety measures and in fact want further directions for amendment of the Indian Railway Disaster Management Plan 2009.

¶24

In our considered view the grievance made by the petitioner and the prayer as detailed hereinabove are nothing but policy matters executive in nature involving technical and expert consideration and relate to running

¶25

W.P.(C) 11694/2016 page 2 of 3

¶26

of trains, safety measures and matters with regard to Railway administration. This Court cannot enter into such administrative technical or matters of policy which is within the domain of the respondents in exercise of their administrative powers. A mandamus of the nature prayed for cannot be granted or issued by this Court with regard to all such issues which are beyond the scope of judicial review available to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Accordingly, granting liberty to the petitioner to take up the issue with the Railway Administration or the authorities of Union of India who may look into the grievance of the petitioner and adopt policies as are permissible under law, we dispose of the matter.

¶27

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶28

CHIEF JUSTICE

¶29

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

¶30

DECEMBER 10, 2018/ ns

¶31

W.P.(C) 11694/2016

¶32

page 3 of 3

Shri Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Salek Chand Jain v. Union of India

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

Anjeet Singh Vs the Hon'Ble Lt. Governor of Delhi & Ors.

Inder Mohan Singh Vs DDA

Natasha Kohli Vs Union of India and Ors.

Gurucharna Singh & Ors. Vs Union of India & Anr.

F.S.Chauhan Vs UOI & Ors.

Union of India & Ors. Vs Kundan

Union of India & Ors. Vs Rajo

D.T.C. Thr. Its Chairman Vs Vijay Kumar

Central Public Information Officer Vs Urmilesh Kumar

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of (Nct of) Delhi and Ors.

Court on Its Motion Vs New Delhi Municipal Council & Ors.

Suresh Chand Gupta & Anr. Vs Archaeological Survey of India & Ors.

Military Farm Non Gazette Employees Vs Union of India & Ors.

The Revolution Foundation Vs South Delhi Municipal Corporation & Ors.