Disposed

Deendayal Bang v. Union of India

Rajasthan HC1 Feb 2022CW/1496/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench disposed of a PIL filed by an individually disabled person regarding insufficient facilities at a railway station for differently abled persons. The Court relied on a previous PIL order where facilities were deemed provided. The Court directed railway authorities to examine fresh grievances regarding non-functional facilities and train scheduling before discharging them.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Railway authorities to examine grievances of petitioners and take appropriate measures.

Deendayal Bang Vs Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition (PIL) No. 1496/2022

¶3

Deendayal Bang S/o Shri Ramgopal Bang, Aged About 35 Years, Resident Of Sadar Bazar, Ren, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union Of India, Through The Chief Secretary, Ministry Of Railway, Government Of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi Through Its Secretary.

¶7

The Railway Board, Under The Ministry Of Railway Rail Bhawan, New Delhi, Through Its Director, Mechanical Transportation (Coaching) II, Authorized Officer/ Coaching Directorate.

¶8

North Western Railway, Jodhpur Through Divisional Rail Manager (Operating), Near Police Commissioner Office, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶9

General Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.

¶10

Chief Commercial Manager, North Western Railway, Head Quarter, Near Jawahar Circle, Jaipur.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s),	: Mr.	Shridhar Mehta
through V.C.
For Respondent(s)	: ---

¶13

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AKIL KURESHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN GOPAL VYAS

¶14

Order

¶15

01/02/2022

¶16

The petitioner has take up the cause of differently abled persons visiting the pilgrimage place called ‘Butati Dham’ situated near Ran railway station in Nagaur district.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-1496/2022]

¶19

According to the petitioner, the railway authorities have not provided sufficient facilities as required under the law at the railway station for the differently abled persons.

¶20

We, however, notice that a similar public interest petition being D.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17903/2018 filed earlier by the same petitioner was disposed of by this Court on 07.01.2021 in following terms:

¶21

“2. In continuation of the reply earlier filed, an additional reply/status report dated 27.7.2020 has been filed by the respondents (Railways) pursuant to order dated 15.01.2020. It is inter alia, stated that additional toilet facilities (men and women) and drinking water facilities for specially abled persons have been provided and made operational. It is also stated that proper facilities for separate urinals, drinking water tap and water coolers have been provided.

¶22

3. Upon perusal of the reply and status report, we are satisfied that the respondents have provided requisite facilities. We are not inclined to issue any mandamus for prayer No.(ii), as it is a policy matter. 4. The proceedings of the present writ petition are, therefore, closed.”

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submitted that the promised facilities have not been made fully functional by the railway authorities and fresh issues have arisen on account of railway authorities stopping certain trains at platform No.2 without fully constructing the foot over bridge.

¶24

As noted previously, the Division Bench had examined the issues presented before it and closed the public interest petition after being satisfied that the railway authorities had taken appropriate steps to mitigate the difficulties of the differently abled persons. It is true that in causes concerning the general public, there cannot be a finality of the litigation nor can fresh look be completely barred on the principles of res judicata. However, at the appropriate stage the fresh issues, which the petitioner now

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[CW-1496/2022]

¶27

seeks to bring to our notice, must be examined by the railway authorities, particularly in view of the disposal of the earlier public interest petition. Let the railway authorities examine the grievances of the petitioners and take appropriate measures as found necessary in terms of law.

¶28

The petition is disposed of at this stage.

¶29

(MADAN GOPAL VYAS),J (AKIL KURESHI),CJ

¶30

4-MohitTak/-

Deendayal Bang v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deendayal Bang 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Rajasthan Vs Bikaner Institute of Medical Sciences

Rajendra Singh Rathore and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

State of Rajasthan Vs Lata

Shobha Vs State of Rajasthan

State of Rajasthan Vs Gaj Singh Mehta

Smt. Kamla Devi Vs Sunder Devi