P.P. Johnson alias Kalavoor Johnson v. Union of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/24TH MAGHA 1934 ## WP(C).No. 34464 of 2011 (S) PETITIONER(S): ---------------- P.P.JOHNSON ALIAS KALAVOOR JOHNSON S/O.LATE P.A.PETER, AGED 52 YEARS, GENERAL CONVENOR THALASSERY-MYSORE RAILWAY LINE ACTION COUNCIL KILIYANTHARA PO, 670 706, THALASSERY TALUK KANNUR DISTRICT. ## BY ADV. SRI.R.SURENDRAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------- UNION OF INDIA REP;BY THE SECRETARY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH WPC NO.602/2013 ON 13-02-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. & K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of February, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur,CJ** W.P.(C) No.602/2013 is filed seeking the following reliefs by the Convener of the Nilgiris-Wayanad National High Way and Railway Action Committee:- “i) issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other Writ directing the respondents to take further steps on Ext.P7 for the construction of Nanjangud-Nilambur rail line, at least Nanjangud-Sulthan Bathery 72 Km stretch. ii) such other relief that this Hon'ble court may deem fit to grant in the interest of justice.” 2. The grievance of the Committee seems to be nonimplementation or not taking effective measures by the respondent-railways to make sure that there is connectivity to the Waynad district from Nanjangud in the State of Karnataka. According to them, having regard to the difficulties faced by the **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **2** public who travel from Wayanad to Border district of Mysore, especially, Nanjangud and other places, suffering nonavailability of any proper railway connectivity between the two districts, this PIL is filed. Therefore, several representations were made to make such connectivity. The very situation of mountain boundaries between the two districts, accentuate the suffering of the people of Wayanad for want of railway facilities to reach their place from different parts of Karnataka through Mysore district. 3. According to them, a proposal was mooted for Sultan Bathery-Nanjangud railway line by the Railway Ministry, which came to be approved by the Planning Commission and the Vision Plan of 2020 envisages such railway connectivity. In spite of it, the railway is not taking any steps to implement the same, though they are aware of the misery and difficulties faced by the people of these two regions, that is Mysore district and Wayanad district. 4. So far as Writ Petition No.34464 of 2011, the petitioner claiming to be a social worker interested in social welfare and developmental activities in the State of Kerala has approached in **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **3** this Public Interest Litigation with the idea of ThalasseryMysore railway line which came to be proposed first by the then Hon'ble Minister of Railways Sri.Lal Bahadur Sasthri way back in 1956 and insists it has to be implemented, as the same remained a dream project on paper till this date. According to him, the Thalassery- Mysore Railway Line Action Council came to be formed in order to remove the misery of the public in both the states, that is Kerala and Karnataka, and the said Council is meant to see that the half century old desire of the people is brought into reality. 5. According to the petitioner, the plan proposed at Ext.P1 clearly reduces the distance between Kannur/Thalassery and Bangalore by 369 kilometers as against the circuitous route shown by the railways. According to him, several representations were given to the elected representatives of people and the Action Council as well as per Exts.P2,P3 and P4, but all in vain. Therefore, considering the public demand for the public transporting system in the shortest route possible connecting the two states, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **4** “(a) Mandamus directing the respondent to consider Exhibit P2, Exhibit P3 and Exhibit P4 representations and to take appropriate steps in the matter to ensure the fundamental right of freedom of movement throughout the territory of India, and - (b) Any other relief that the Honourable Court - may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 6. A counter affidavit came to be filed by the respondent through its Deputy Chief Engineer/Land and Survey (Construction), Southern Railway, Egmore, Chennai, explaining non feasibility and unviability of the Railway connectivity between the two districts that is Mysore and Wayanad as indicated in the writ petition. 7. According to the respondents, the present writ petitions are nothing but an experimental litigation and none of the allegations and imputations would apply to the factual situation faced by the railways. According to them, the establishment and commissioning of railway line between Thalassery and Mysore crossing the Western Ghats as claimed by the petitioner to be the shortest, less expensive and feasible route is a totally incorrect statement. They admit the representation being **5** ## **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** submitted by the members of the Parliament to the erstwhile Union Minister for Railways to conduct survey for ThalasseryMysore Railway line. The Railway Board sanctioned such traffic survey for a new broad-guage railway line from Thalassery to Mysore(via) Coorg and Wayanad. Two alternative routes came to be looked into which are detailed as under:- (1) Via Kodugu (Coorg): This alignment passes through Mattanur, Kanjarakolli, Babbirad, Udumbe, Madikeri Road, Kushal Nagar, Hunser and Savakara Hundi. (2) Via Wayanad: This alternative alignment passes through Nadapuram Memmala, Kaikatteri, Periya, Bavali, Hampapura and Asokapuram. 8. Based on the report, for Route No.1, the estimate came around `2945.57 crores, subject to further escalations especially in the acquisition and construction costs. So far as the 2[nd] route, it was quantified at `2533.80 crores, again subject to above escalations. Though there was sincere intention to look into the new proposals, the cost involved in the two alternative routes do not permit the railway authorities to commission the broadguage line from Thalassery to Mysore through the above said two routes. The main reason is non-viability, paucity of funds **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **6** and infrastructural inadequacies. With these submissions the Deputy Chief Engineer submits that after sincere efforts by conducting a survey it was found, the two alternative routes are highly expensive, non feasible and impractical. Therefore, they have dropped the said idea. With these averments, they have sought for dismissal of these writ petitions. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.602/2013 contended that the Vision Plan of 2020 clearly indicates the desire and intention of the Railways to attend to the need of socially desirable routes. Therefore, the present route or the proposed connectivity between Thalassery and Mysore is nothing but a socially desirable route. Therefore, the railways are bound to act in accordance with the Vision Plan of 2020. So far as the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34464 of 2011, according to him, route shown at Ext.P1 clearly indicates, the railway authority is thinking of a circuitous route which costs more than `3000 crores or `2,500 crores as indicated in the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Chief Engineer. Therefore, if the route indicated or proposed at Ext.P1 is adopted, the cost of the project would be half of the estimate indicated in the counter of **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **7** the railways. Therefore, the long desire of people of these two regions has to be implemented and even social responsibility deserves such a positive action from the respondent-authority. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.34464 of 2011 strenuously points out that if the representations are considered, they would be satisfied. 10. Learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-railways brought to our notice the specific contentions or the stand taken by the railways in the counter affidavit filed by them and to substantiate its stand they also rely upon the decisions reported in **Federation of Railway Officers Association.v.Union of India** (AIR 2003 SC 1344) and **Union of India v. J.D.Suryavanshi** (AIR 2011 SC 3605). 11. From the materials placed on record, it is not in dispute that the railway-authorities are not denying the difficulties faced by the people of these two regions for want of connectivity. One cannot ignore the fact that the situation of the terrain between Nanjangud and Wayanad also is very relevant in order to understand how infrastructural facility becomes very significant **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **8** to implement the proposed railway connectivity. 12. According to the railways, a detailed survey was conducted and based on the said survey two alternative routes were advised. None of the routes indicate any feasible expenditure. One route costs about `3000 crores and other route is about `2500 crores. When railway budget is prepared, if such a proposal, to bring the new railway connectivity, is to be implemented, the railway has to find out necessarily how they recoup this expenditure in order to conclude the financial viability of the project. The experts of the Railway department have ultimately arrived at a conclusion that neither of the routes are feasible and viable for various reasons. Not only financial constraints, but also infrastructural deficits are coming in the way of the railways. No doubt, social commitment is always on the shoulders of the respondent-authorities to redress the need of the public. Can it be by way of a mandamus, is the question before us. 13. The railways have clearly placed entire materials and they are not shirking from the responsibility of redressing the needs of the public. Their main grievance is, it is not financially **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **9** viable and they do not have at present infrastructural facility to redress the need proposed in these two writ petitions. 14. Vision Plan of 2020 does indicate 'socially desirable routes'. 'Socially desirable route' means from remote places there has to be connectivity. According to the railways, from 18000 kms such socially desirable connectivity would be enhanced to 30000 km all over the country. When the authorities are faced with such socially desirable connectivity, they have to prioritize the areas with reference to the distance to be covered depending upon the financial viability and feasibility from various angles. In that context, the experts of the respondent-authorities would workout what would be the feasible and viable projects that could be taken up in a particular budget. These are all policy decisions depending upon the situation and the need with reference to priority of which region and how and with what amount. In that context, it is desirable to refer to two decisions of the Apex Court referred to by learned Standing Counsel for railways. ## 15. In **Federation of Railway Officers Association. v.** **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **10** ## **Union of India** (AIR 2003 SC 1344) Paragraph 18 is relevant which reads as under:- “18. Even if we assume that there is force in the material placed by the petitioners that by forming new railway zones efficiency in the railway administration would not enhance, the reasons given by the Government and material placed by them in support of forming new railway zones is no less or even more forceful. Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the field have expressed various views and all those aspects have been taken into consideration by the Government in deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court should re-examine to interfere with the same. The wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant factors, eschew from considering irrelevant factors and act reasonably within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same. Even on the test suggested by Dr. Pal we cannot travel outside this principle to sit in appeal on the decision of the Government.” ## 16. In **Union of India v. J.D.Suryavanshi** (AIR 2011 SC 3605), Paragraphs 10 and 11 are relevant, which read as under:- **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **11** “10. How many coaches should be attached, what types of coaches are to be attached, on which lines what trains should run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters to be decided by the Railway administration using technical inputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and other considerations. This Court has repeatedly held that courts should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to-day functioning of any departments of Governments or statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of roles has been voiced. We may usefully refer to the following observation in the Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998) made in a different context: “With regard to institutional separation of roles, into policy, regulatory and management functions, these roles are currently blurred, which causes confusion about the underlying vision and mission of Indian Railway. The institutional separation of roles will mean that policy makers are limited to setting policy; regulators fix competition rules in general and pricing in particular; management manages and is measured against clear performance indicators.” 11. The record of the case shows that Railway had made all efforts to comply with the requirements/earlier directions of the High Court. Courtesies extended by Railways should not be taken as readiness to comply with impractical suggestions and uneasonable directions. The malaise of interference in the functioning of Railway administration is a **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **12** matter of concern. Courts, bureaucracy and political leaders should give up the tendency to compel or pressurize the Railway administration to cater to only parts of the country particularly to the State or area to which they belong. Any such attempt to promote only regional interests would affect the national interest. The Railways should have the freedom and independence to grow, develop, improve and serve the nation. Be that as it may.” 17. Reading of these paragraphs clearly indicate under what circumstances directions of the present nature sought in the writ petitions could be given. It is very clear that policy makers are entitled and empowered to take decisions depending upon the situation. 18. So far as policy decisions, the courts cannot issue directions especially to generate the social commitment of the policy makers The floor is altogether different as indicated in the unreported decision of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the order dated 18.02.2011 in W.P.No.4120/2001 and connected cases. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, mere envisaging a vision in Vision Plan of 2020 is not an undertaking to be complied with by the railway-authorities. By any stretch of imagination one cannot expect a direction from **W.P.(C) Nos.34464 of 2011 and 602 of 2013** **13** the Court in the nature of mandamus compelling the railways to attend to such vision plan proposals. 19. It is also pertinent to mention that there is a road connectivity between these two places and it is not a case where other form of transportation is missing or unavailable. Merely because there is a ban for night transportation on the roads, railway connectivity could not become the need of the hour. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion, none of the reliefs sought in these two writ petitions deserves to be granted. Accordingly these two writ petitions are dismissed. It is needless to say, whenever the representations are submitted to the respondent-authorities, they can look into the same and redress the need if they think it is necessary or is a need of the hour. ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** sj 14/2