Dismissed

Y.Balaji , Balaji vadera, v. The Union of India

Telangana HC4 Aug 2014PIL/205/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Order dismisses a PIL seeking to eliminate 510 level crossings in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that under Section 19 of the Railways Act, 1989, the obligation to initiate removal lies with the State Government or local authority, not the Railways, and dismissed the petition as none of the required authorities were parties.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no direction to eliminate level crossings or construct ROUs issued.

Y.Balaji , Balaji vadera, Vs The… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2014)

¶1

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA

¶2

AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No.205 of 2014

¶4

DATED:4.8.2014

¶5

Between: Y. Balaji, Hyderabad. … Petitioner And The Union of India, Represented by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi and others.

¶6

….Respondents

¶7

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

¶8

Public Interest Litigation No.205 of 2014

¶9

Order: (per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)

¶10

This application said to be in the interest of the public has been filed making the Union of India represented by the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, New Delhi as party to the petition. (It is not known how the Indian Railways could be a sui juris and the South Central Railway as party respondent). The relief sought for in this petition is as follows:

¶11

“to issue a writ, order or direction more appropriately a writ of mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondents in not eliminating the level crossings as arbitrary, illegal and violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to eliminate 510 level crossings whether manned (with or without signals) or unmanned and construction of road under bridge (RUB), Road over bridge (ROB) at level crossings in the State of Telangana and State of Andhra Pradesh forthwith and pass such other order or orders.”

¶12

Taking note of the submissions of the petitioner, who is appearing as party-in-person, we read Section 19 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short ‘the Act’). According to him, under this provision of law, action has to be taken. We, therefore, feel it useful to reproduce the said Section, which is as follows:

¶13

“19. Over-bridges and under-bridges:___ (1) Where a railway administration has constructed lines of rails across a public road at the same level, the State Government or the local authority maintaining the road, may, at any time, in the interest of public safety, require the railway administration to take the road either under or over the railway by means of a bridge or arch with convenient ascents and descents and other convenient approaches, instead of crossing the road on the level, or to execute such other works as may, in the circumstances of the case, appear to the State Government or the local authority maintaining the road to be best adapted for removing or diminishing the danger arising from the level crossing.”

¶14

On careful reading of the aforesaid Section, it is clear that the railway lines can be constructed on the public road at the same level. However, if for the interest of the public safety, the State Government or the local authority should maintain roads requiring the railway administration to take the road either under or over the railway by means of a bridge or arch with convenient ascents and descents and other convenient approaches, instead of crossing the road on the level. The aforesaid Section, in our view, obliges State Government or local authority as the case may be, maintaining roads, to require Railway Administration to take any of the above measures in the interest of public safety. It is not the railways to do anything until the State Government or the local authority requires the railway administration.

¶15

Admittedly, neither the State Government nor the appropriate local authority is made as party herein. However, the petitioner, who appears as party-in-person says that there has been a report of the committee and it has some relevance in this matter. As we notice from the prayer and the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the petition, the aforesaid

¶16

recommendation of the committee is not required to be enforced. In any event, under the law, the recommendation of a committee has no binding effect unless it is accepted by the appropriate Government and the authority.

¶17

In view of the discussion, we dismiss the Public Interest Litigation.

¶18

The miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also stand closed. No costs.

¶19

__________________ K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ

¶20

_________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 4^th August, 2014 pnb

Y.Balaji , Balaji vadera, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Y.Balaji , Balaji vadera, v. The 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

Dr. S.Malla Reddy, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh Revenue

Animal Rescue Organization Vs Government of A.P. rep. by its

The Communist Party of India (Marxist) Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

C. Sai Sai Vishnuvardhan, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Gareeb Guide (Voluntary Organization) Vs State of Telangana

Mohd. Aqeel Vs The Union of India, Rep. by Secretary, Minority Welfare

Mohammad Abu bakar Vs Government of Telangana

Dr. Sujit Mukharjee, Vs The Government of Telangana