UNION OF INDIA Vs. J D SURYAVANSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The Respondent, a practicing lawyer, filed a public interest litigation in the year 2009 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) praying for issue of the following directions to the Railway administration (Western Railway, West Central Railway and North Central Railway):

(3.) The High Court passed a series of interim orders in the said case, in compliance of which, Railways made changes in the timings of several trains. They also added AC-II coaches, AC-I coaches, composite (AC-III cum AC-II) coaches to several trains. In some cases, the Railway Administration informed the court that the demand for further trains/coaches will not be feasible or could not be met, either due to technical reasons or lack of full capacity utilization in regard to existing trains/coaches. They also pointed out that certain seasonal increase in passenger traffic like summer vacations, cannot be a ground for permanent or throughout the year addition of new trains or addition of new coaches.