Disposed

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi v. the Union of India

Kerala HC7 Jun 2024WP(C)/36336/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition seeking construction of a Foot Over Bridge and Railway Over Bridge at Pudukkad Railway Station. Railways stated an FOB is not feasible due to site constraints and cost, and an ROB requires State Government proposal. Court disposed of petition permitting petitioner to submit representations to be decided within four months.

What the court decided

AI extract

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi Vs the Union of… — Municipal and Town Planning | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 17TH JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015

¶5

PETITIONER/S:

¶6

THE PUDUKKAD SAMAGRA VIKASANA SAMITHI
BEARING REG.NO.496/06, HAVING OFFICE AT PUDUKAD P.O,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT JOBY PULIKAN,
AGED 49, S/O.PULIKAN ANTO, PUDUKAD,
THRISSUR DISTRICT -680 301.
BY ADV SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶7

RESPONDENT/S:

¶8

1 THE UNION OF INDIA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, NEW DELHI - 1.

¶9

2 THE STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 695 001.

¶10

3 THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001.

¶11

4 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 001.

¶12

5 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, CONSTRUCTION PH ROAD,EGMORE, CHENNAI - 8.

¶13

BY ADVS.
SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
SRI. T C. KRISHNA – DSGI IN-CHARGE
SRI. VENUGOPAL V., GP

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
07.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶15

WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015 2

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

Petitioner has approached this Court, being aggrieved by the fact that claim to erect a Foot Over Bridge and to construct a Railway Over Bridge, which are absolutely necessary at Pudukkad is not being considered by the competent authorities.

¶18

It is the case of the petitioner that, despite the fact that proposals are pending from the year 2004, no progress has been made to construct a Foot Over Bridge and a Railway Over Bridge, causing great distress and misery to the residents of Pudukkad.

¶19

The Indian Railways has filed a counter affidavit where in paragraph Nos. 9 to 13, it is stated as follows:-

¶20

‘’9. Pudukkad Railway Station which has lesser volume of passenger as well as freight traffic has been provided with ‘’Trolley Paths’’ at the end of each platform, to enable passengers to cross platforms 1 and 2. The Railway Administration in its wisdom and discretion do construct F.O.B at Railway station, where earnings do not fall within the criteria of Exhibit R-1(1) . However, in the case of Pudukad Railway Station a F.O.B cannot be constructed for the below mentioned reason.

¶21

On assessing the site layout of Paduka Rally Station, it was found that a lot of alteration and modification have to be made, which is cost prohibiting. All constructions in the Railways are

¶22

WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015 3

¶23

governed by Standard Schedule of dimensions, which is sacrosanct for passenger safety. A F.O.B can be constructed on an island Platform only if there exist a setback distance of 3.66 metres from the F.O.B landing to the edge of the platform. In Pudukkad Railway Station, the said required distance is not available, which is imperative. If the same as to be provided, platform No.2 would have to be widened, for which purpose, the siding track would have to be relocated, alterations have to be made to the signalling arrangements and the existing Railway Quarters will have shifted. The estimated post for such allied preparatory work has estimated over Rs.2 Crore. Due to the huge cost involved and the lesser revenue generated from the said Railway Station, the Railway Administration has decided not to construct of F.O.B at present. The petitioner has no legal right to demand the construction of the F.O.B against the norms/guidelines that are in vogue . Therefore the writ petition is only liable to be dismissed

¶24

All the allegations and imputations alleged in the writ petition, save those averments admitted hereunder, are denied by these respondents

¶25

The averments in paragraph 1 of the writ petition are matters of record, which the petitioner is bound to prove. Similarly, the avements in paragraph 2 of the writ petition are also matters of record. The allegations in paragraph 3 of the writ petition regarding the reasons for not constructing the F.O.B, have been elaborately pleaded in the preceding paragraphs. There is no discrimination shown by these respondents as regards the construction of the FOB at Putukad Railway Station, as alleged. The reasons for not constructing the F.O.B have been cogently pleaded supra.

¶26

The averments in paragraph 4 of the writ petition are not fully correct and hence denied. Only after the proposal for the construction of the R.O.B is forwarded by the State Government, can the same be considered by the Railway Administration. The allegations in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the writ petition are not fully correct and hence denied. TheR.O.B as well as the F.O.B can be constructed only in

¶27

WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015 4

¶28

acccordance with the norms/guidelines that are in vogue. No exception can be caved out for the Padukad Railway Station. The Grounds that have been alleged in the writ petition are a reiteration of the allegations in the statement of facts which have already been explained and denied by me in the preceding paragraphs. The writ petition is devoid of any merits or substance and is only liable to be dismissed.’’

¶29

A reading of the counter affidavit filed by the Indian Railway would indicate that a Foot Over Bridge cannot be constructed at Pudukad Railway Station for the reasons stated in paragraph No.10 of the counter affidavit. When such a stand is taken by the Railway Administration, this Court cannot compel the Railway Administration to construct a Foot Over Bridge there. Regarding the construction of a Railway Over Bridge, it is stated in paragraph No.13 of the counter affidavit that, if a proposal is forwarded by the State Government, the same can be considered by the Railway Administration.

¶30

Considering the averments in the counter affidavit filed by the Railways, this writ petition will stand disposed of, permitting the petitioner to move the competent authority of the 1^st respondent and also the competent authority of the State Government, who shall consider any representation, that may be placed before them, by the petitioner for construction of Foot Over Bridge/Railway Over Bridge and take a decision thereon,

¶31

WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015 5

¶32

in accordance with the law, without undue delay and having regard to the facts and circumstances prevailing presently. If such a representation is preferred by the petitioner as above, along with a certified copy of this judgment, the competent authority shall take a decision on the representations (to be submitted) without undue delay and at any rate within a period of four months from the date of receipt of copy of such representation.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

GOPINATH P. JUDGE

¶35

ajt

¶36

WP(C) NO. 36336 OF 2015 6

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 36336/2015

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

EXT.P-1: A TRUE COPY OF THE DRAWING FOR THE RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE
PREPARED IN THE YEAR 2003 DATED NIL.

¶40

EXT.P-2: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE DIVISIONAL
RAILWAY MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DATED 29.11.2012

¶41

EXT.P-3: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE WORTH BRANCH,
CHENNAI DATED 31.1.2013

¶42

EXT.P-4: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 3.2.2014

¶43

EXT.P-5: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED NIL.

¶44

EXT.P-6: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 24.5.2013

¶45

EXT.P-7: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 14.12.2012

¶46

EXT.P-8: A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION OF THE ROADS AND BRIDGES
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED DATED 30.12.2013

¶47

EXT.P-9: A TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 27.12.2013 OF THE
PETITIONER

¶48

RESPONDENTS’ EXHIBITS

¶49

R-1(1) – TRUE COPY OF THE CRITERIA FOR CATEGORIZATION OF STATIONS

¶50

R-1(2) – TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINIMUM ESSENTIAL
AMENITIES TO BE PROVIDED AT EACH CATEGORY RAILWAY STATION AS PER
THE RAILWAY WORKS MANUAL

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Pudukkad Samagra Vikasana Samithi v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P.Azad, Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Excise

P.Azad, Vs the Drugs Controller(Ayurveda)

Balasundaram S. Vs State Bank of India

N.Muhammed Haneefa and Another Vs the Managing Director and Another

Shobhana Vs Balakrishnan

Kerala State Gymnastics Association Vs State of Kerala