M SENTHAMIZH SELVAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed, as a Public Interest Litigation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a peculiar direction from this Court against the respondents to operate 12 CAR EMU train (morning 7.05 and 7.50 trains only) from Thirumalpur to Chennai Beach via Kanchipuram, Walajabad, Palur, Chengalpet, Tambaram, Guindy, Egmore, Chennai Beach, by considering the petitioner's representation made on 12.1.2012. The learned counsel, while elaborating her submissions, stated before this Court that the petitioner, being a practising Advocate in this Court since 2010, is coming to this Court every day by using electric train from Kanchipuram to this Court, covering a distance of 95 Kms. While commuting everyday, both in the morning and evening, he is finding it very difficult to even board the train starting from his destination, as it is having only 9 CAR from Thirumalpur to Chennai Beach. When one compartment is having a seating capacity of only 108 seats, it is very difficult for the ladies, old people, students and office goers to use the train having 9 CAR EMU running at 7.05 a.m. Therefore, the petitioner made a representation to the Public Relations Officer, Southern Railway on 1.6.2011, followed by another representation dated 21.6.2011, to operate one 12 CAR EMU train in the morning service scheduled at 7.05 a.m. instead of 9 CAR EMU train to reduce the passengers' daily struggle to commute the above distance. But, till date, his representations have not been answered by the respondents. Therefore, in the interest of public, he pleaded this Court to intervene by giving a suitable direction to the respondents to run 12 CAR EMU train from Thirumalpur to Chennai Beach instead of the present 9 CAR EMU train starting at 7.05 a.m., at Thirumalpur. Adding further, it was pleaded that this prayer is made purely for the public interest because most of the passengers are students going to SRM University, Madras Christian College, IIT Madras, Anna University, Government Law College (Fort), Fort Staffs, Court's staff, Secretariat's staff, Post Workers etc., hence, the bonafide of the prayer needs acceptance.

(2.) Opposing the said prayer, Mr. P.T. Ramkumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 prayed for dismissing the writ petition contending that when a similar writ petition was filed as Public Interest Litigation asking for the same and identical relief before the Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior Bench, after granting certain reliefs to add more coaches, the Railway Department preferred an appeal to the Honourable Apex Court, while allowing the said appeal in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. J.D. SURYAVANSHI reported in , : (2011) 13 SCC 167, it has been held that the High Courts in exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are not justified in directing the Railways to provide additional trains, additional coaches, change timings etc., wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. Therefore, when a similar prayer made by the petitioner to add more coaches had been rightly considered and negatived by the Apex Court stating that the Railway Administration has limited resources, limited number of railway engines and railway coaches, particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC I class coaches and that the Railways will have to distribute and utilise the available resources and the available rolling-stock equitably, uniformly and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country, the same prayer of the petitioner herein cannot be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides.