Disposed¶52

Bakka Rajini v. The Union of India

Telangana HC2 Mar 2026WP/5578/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Telangana High Court writ petition; Begumpet Railway Station boundary wall; closure of pedestrian crossing across railway tracks; domestic workers' access to Methodist Colony, Umanagar, Kundanbagh; Articles 14 and 21; Railways Act 1989 trespass and safety; mandamus; direction to consider representations within two weeks; disposed without adjudicating merits; WP 5578 of 2026; Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka; 02.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' representations and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within two (02) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order; no costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, stand closed. ¶52

Bakka Rajini Vs The Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Telangana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the action of respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in constructing a boundary wall at Methodist Colony near Begumpet Railway Station, blocking the long-standing pedestrian access across the railway tracks, is illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, and having regard to the limited relief grantable at that stage, the Court held that the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the petitioners' representations; the legality of the wall under Articles 14 and 21 was left undecided.

¶51

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon in accordance with law within two (02) weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (Art. 226) by three women domestic workers challenging the construction of a boundary wall by South Central Railway authorities (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) near Begumpet Railway Station, Hyderabad, which blocked a pedestrian crossing across the railway tracks used openly and uninterruptedly for over three decades by nearly 1,000 women domestic workers to reach workplaces in Methodist Colony, Umanagar and Kundanbagh, alleging violation of Articles 14 and 21; the railways defended the wall as a bona fide safety measure on a busy section (approximately 100 trains daily at speeds up to 110 kmph) where trespass at non-permitted locations is prohibited under the Railways Act, 1989. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the High Court (Nagesh Bheemapaka, J.) disposed of the petition on 02.03.2026, directing the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners' representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within two weeks. No costs; miscellaneous petitions, if any, closed.

¶1

[³³⁰⁰¹

¶2

!N THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

MONDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENry SIX

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SRIJUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 5578 OF 2026

¶7

Between:

¶8

Bakka Rajini, Wo Bakka Shankar, Age.36 years, Occupation. Domestic Worker, Fi/o H.No. 1-10-387116, Mathaji Nagar, Begumpet, Secunderabad, Hyderabad, Telangana,

¶9

K. Aruna, C/o Pedda Muni Swamy, Age. 32 years, Occupation. Domestic Worker, Fl/o H.No 7-48, Kandur, Mahabubnagar,Telangana, Temporarily staying at Methodist Colony,Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶10

Jogu Lalita, D/o Jogu Narsaiah, Age. 37 years, Occupation. Domestic Worker, |./o^{H.lto. 3-37lA, Kuchoor, Mahabubnagar, Telangana, Temporarily stayingat} Methodist Colony, Begumpet, Hyderabad.

¶11

...PET!TIONERS

¶12

AND

¶13

The Union of lndia, rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways Rail Bhavan road New Delhi.

¶14

The General Manager, South Central Railways, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Telangana State.

¶15

The Divisonal Railway Manager, South Central Railway, Secundrabad Division.

¶16

The District Collector, Hyderabad District, at Hyderabad.

¶17

¶18

...RESPONDENTS

¶19

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court hay be pleased to issue_ writ or direction preferably writ of mandamus deilaring the iction of the respondents no. 2 and 3 in constructing a wall in the Methodist colony, near Begumpet Railway station, and blocking the long-standing pedestrian ic"".. across the railway tracks which has been in continuous use for over three decades by women domestic workers including petitioners for accessing their workplaces at Methodist, colony, Umanagar and Kundanbhag areas, as illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶20

tA NO: 1 OF 21126

¶21

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filerd in support of the^{petition,the High Court may be pleasedto issue} a direction to the Respondent No.^{3 to consider and dispose of the representation} dated 19.01.2r)26 and 17.02.2026 submitted^{by the Petitioners, and to take} appropriate aclion thereon.

¶22

Counsel for the Petitioner: SMT. VELLANKI^KRISHNA

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.1 to 3:^{SMT.P.N.V. MAHALAKSHMI} (SC FOR CENTRAL GOVT)

¶24

Counset for th€, Respondent No.4: GP^{FOR REVENUE}

¶25

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶26

¶27

TN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶28

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEITIAPAI(A uIRIT No.5578 of 2o26

¶29

Dated: O .o3.2026

¶30

Between:

¶31

Smt. Bakka Raiini and others

¶32

Petitioner

¶33

AND

¶34

The Union of India & others

¶35

ORDER:

¶36

...Respondents

¶37

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in constructing a boundary wall at Methodist colony, near Begumpet Railway Station, Hyderabad, thereby blocking the longstanding pedestrian access across the railway tracks, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles L4 and 2l of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to restore access or consider the representations submitted by the petitioners.

¶38

Heard Smt. Vellanki Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners; smt. PNV Mahalakshmi, Iearned standing counsel for central Government, for respondent Nos.l to 3 and learned Government pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.4.

¶39

¶40

¶41

3' Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and neariy l,OO0 women domestic workers residing in Matajinagar and Brahman,,adi, Begumpet, have been using the pedestrian access across the railway tracks near Begurnpet Railway station for more than three decades t. reach their workplaces in Methodist Colony, Umanagar and Kundanbagh areas. She submits that the said access has been open, peaceful a:rd uninterrupted for over 3O years, r,vith the knowledge and tacit acquiescence of the railway authorities. She submits that the sudden construction of a boundary wall by respondent Nos.2 and 3, without nor:ice, consultation or provision of an alternative route, has severely affi:cted the livelihood of the petitioners, compelling them to take a lonl;er route of nearly two kilometres and incur additional transportation expenses. She submits that several affected women workers havr: sl1s26y lost employment or suffered reduction in income. She further submits that representations dated 23.01 .2026 and 17 '02'2026 virere submitted to the authorities requesting restoration of regulated acoess or provision of an alternative arrangement, but no action has bet:n taken so far.

¶42

Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, on instructions, rsubmits that the location in question falls on a busy railway sectio:r where approximately 100 trains pass daily in both directions at speeds up to 11o kmph. She submits that unauthorized crossing of railway tracks at non-designated places poses serious risk to human lifeiancl affects safe train operations. she submits that under ,/

1 a

the provisions of ,,h". Railways Act, 1989, trespassing and crossing at non-permitted locations is prohibited. she submits that the constrrrction of the boundary wall on the subject premises is a bona fide safety measure undertaken in the interest of public safetSr and safe railway operations. She further submits that the said action of the respondent authorities is lawful, in accordance with safet5r norms, and intended to prevent accidents and loss of life.

¶48

This court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

¶49

The grievance of the petitioners primarily concerns the hardship caused due to closure of the pedestrian access through the subject premises and the alleged inaction of the respondents in considering their representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.O2.2026. At the same time, the stand of the respondent authorities is that the construction of the boundary wall on the subject premises has been undertaken as a safety measure in view of heavy train movement and in compliance with statutory provisions.

¶50

without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and having regard to the limited relief that can be granted at this stage, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioner^

¶51

¶52

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent authorities to consider the representations dated 2g.Ot.2026 and 17.02.2026 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a periocl of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶53

Misce.laneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.

¶54

SD/. B. REKHA RANI ISTANT REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPYII

SECTION OFFICER

To,