Suo Motu Proceeding Initiated Based on the Petition Received from Sri Lakshman Bhakta Manjeshwar Kasaragod

**IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. MANJULA CHELLUR & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN** **TUESDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF JANUARY 2013/25TH POUSHA 1934** **WP(C).No. 18939 of 2012 (S) ---------------------------** **PETITIONER(S):** **--------------** **SUO MOTU PROCEEDING INITIATED BASED ON THE PETITION RECEIVED FROM SRI. LAKSHMAN BHAKTHA MANJESWAR KASARAGOD REGARDING THE NEGLECT OF KASARAGOD DISTRICT ESPICIALLY THAT OF MANJESWAR AND NEARBY REGIONS BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR PROVIDING BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES AND THAT FOR TRANSPORTATION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT AND THE INDIAN RAILWAY** **RESPONDENT(S):** - **--------------** **1. THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO THE RAILWAY MINISTRY GOVERNMENT OF INDIA,NEW DELHI** **2. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGE,R SOUTHERN RAILWAY,PALAKKAD DIVISION,PALAKKAD KERALA** **3. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT SECRETARIA,T THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM** **4. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO SOCIAL WELFARE MINISTRY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **5. THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO ROAD TRANSPORTATION MINISTRY GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **6. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGIND DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION GOVERNMENT OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** **7. SRI. LAKSHMAN BHAKATHA, (PETITIONER ARRAYED AS RESPONDENT), BHAKTH MUTTU,CAR STREET,MANJESWAR KASARAGOD 671323** - **R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAYS BY ADV. SRI.ARUN ANTONY BY ADV. SRI.R.ANAS MUHAMMED SHAMNAD R1 TO R3 BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.I.DAVIS R6 BY SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15-01-2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **MANJULA CHELLUR,C.J. &** ## **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, J.** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of January, 2013** ## **JUDGMENT** ## **Manjula Chellur,CJ** Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.Dias, learned Standing Counsel for the Railways. 2. A suo motu Public Interest Litigation is registered on the basis of a petition received from one Mr.Lakshman Bhakta, Bhakth Mutt, Car Street, Manjeshwar. The petition mainly concentrates on the issues regarding lack of infrastructures and inadequate transportation modes in Kasargode district which is creating hardship and also burden on the purse of the public at large in northern part of Kasaragode, especially Manjeswar and its adjacent regions. 3. The challenge is against the responsibilities of the State Government, contending that, on account of lack of responsibility the present situation is faced by the residents of the region for **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **2** more than 1½ century. It is contended, people from this area are forced to depend largely on the facilities available in the city of Mangalore for employment education, trade, medical treatment etc. As the people of this area largely depend on the State owned buses plying between Kasaragode and Mangalore, so also the train facilities run between Mangalore and Kasaragode routes and on account of inadequate facilities, especially, the change of timings of one train bearing No.56661, from 6.30 am to 7 am, has put many people to untold misery, hardship and inconvenience, therefore they have sought for the following reliefs:- - i. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the Respondent No.1 to take immediate steps towards the development of the region of north Kasaragod district. - ii. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondents No.2 and 3 to re-shedule and revamp the train timings and facilities so as to benefit the citizens of the area. **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **3** - iii. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent No.4 to provide the facility of concessional passes to the daily commuters at the earliest possible time so as not to overburden them financially and also to lessen the crowd in the trains. - iv. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ commanding the respondent No.1,2 and 3 so as to construct a road over bridge, a promise that is pending since the last 50 years. - v. To issue a writ, direction or order in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and necessary in the circumstances of the case for the effective implementation.” 4. Except respondents 1 and 2, on behalf of the Railways, others have not filed any objection statement. The averments made in the petition indicate, the main focus is on the change of timings of the above mentioned train rather than issues which are referred to above. The respondents, in detail, have contended in their counter affidavit that reschedule of trains was **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **4** based on the convenience of the general public as well as the running of trains on a particular route at a particular time. According to them, whenever re-schedule of the timing of a particular train is done, it need not refer to any convenience of an individual in particular or group of individuals. The administration normally takes into consideration the request and demands of Peoples' Representatives in the meetings held known as 'User Consultive Committee Meeting'. In the present case, one such meeting came to be held on 20.04.2012, where a decision pertaining to 17 trains came to be taken apart from the present train No.56661 running between Charvattur-Mangalore. 5. Along with the counter affidavit, proceedings of the meeting held on 20.04.2012 is also filed. The contents of the affidavit further indicates, several representations from passengers were received through their Representatives, Associations including Members of Parliament, that the timing of train No.56661 needs to be revised. Based on the proposals received from various quarters, the subject was brought before the aforesaid Committee for speeding up of the trains and other **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **5** relevant matters, including re-schedule of the train in question. The decision of the Committee is based on the public policy as it would cater to the needs of the public at large, rather than one or two individuals. It is also noticed that an additional coach came to be added with effect from September 2012 depending upon the demand and need of the public who travel between Charvattur and Mangalore. Now totally 16 coaches are on this particular train used by the commuters between the two places. The allegation in the writ petition that the Railway administration was totally neglecting the concern of the public is nothing but a statement of the petitioner, because the proceedings of the meeting on 20.04.2012 indicates several officers from various departments of the railways, apart from 14 independent members of the Committee, took part in the proceedings. After deliberation, the change in the timing of this particular train came to be made. 6. So far as the commutation of public from this area to Mangalore, depending upon the facilities available in a particular area, citizen of this country can opt any place of his **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **6** choice as long as required facilities are available, either for education purposes or employment or any trade or business depending upon the choice or desire of the person concerned. If good number of people from Manjeshwar area or other parts of the northern Kasargode are travelling to Mangalore it would only mean that the available facilities in different fields, as mentioned above must be more attractive than the place where they live. 7. It is needless to say that if additional facilities either in the form of transportation or infrastructure deserves to be provided in these areas, the public must take up the issues with their elected representatives who can bring it to the notice of the authorities concerned depending upon the need of the people and the viability a policy decision of the administration concerned could be taken. There is no place in the world which can be called as a Utopian world or a heaven with out any problem. Every place has its own advantages and disadvantages. One has to see whether there is **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **7** intentional negligence or step-motherly treatment to a particular place or person. In the absence of any arbitrariness on the part of the authorities concerned, merely because it is inconvenient or causing hardship to a particular individual, it cannot be considered as the problem of the entire population from that area. The details furnished in the counter affidavit clearly indicates, the revision of timings or change in the schedule of this particular train was based on the request from the public at large. If at all it caused inconvenience to a particular group of persons, including the petitioner herein, the administration of the Railways cannot be forced to please each and every individual who uses the facility of train. It is relevant to mention the opinion of the Apex Court on a similar issue in **Union of India v. J.D.Suryavanshi (** AIR 2011 SCC 3605), paragraph 10 of which reads as under:- “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 **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **8** 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.” 8. Reading the above paragraph, it is made clear that the Railways have made all efforts to look into the convenience of the public and have taken the decision only based on the larger interest of the public. In that view of the matter, we do not find any good ground to grant any relief against respondents 1 and 2, so far as Railways are concerned. Then coming to the infrastructure and other motor transportation as already stated above, it is always **Writ Petition No.18939 of 2012** **9** open to the petitioner or the public from these areas to bring to the notice of the elected representatives, the deficits and the difficulties faced by the population of this area reminding them that they are elected to see the people of their constituency must be heard on their grievances and have to be redressed, provided such grievances affects the larger interest of the public. With these observations, this Writ Petition is disposed of. ## **MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE** **K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE** sj16/1