'Courts Cannot Second-Guess Railway Experts': Jharkhand High Court Declines Plea For Road Over Bridge
The Jharkhand HC has held that courts have limited scope to interfere with technical and policy decisions of railway authorities, declining a PIL seeking construction of a Road Over Bridge (ROB) or manned level crossing between Lalgarh Bihar and Rajhura, near Panjarikala village.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing the PIL seeking a direction to the authorities to commence and complete construction of a manned level crossing or ROB at the existing railway line.
The Railways submitted that there had been a longstanding demand from villagers for a manned level crossing or ROB, as they were currently crossing the railway line unauthorisedly, posing a serious safety hazard. However, it stated that under existing Railway guidelines, new level crossings were not to be opened and that existing ones were progressively being eliminated by providing Limited Height Subways (LHS) or ROBs, depending on site conditions. It further stated that construction of an ROB at the location sought by the petitioner was not permissible under the applicable guidelines.
Accepting that the issue involved technical and policy considerations, the Bench observed:
“These are all policy matters or in any event, matters to be decided by the experts in the field and there is really very limited scope for this Court to second guess the opinion of the experts in this arena.”
The Court also noted that the Railways had not simply ignored the villagers' concerns. It had already commenced construction of an LHS between Panjarikala and Lalgarh Bihar villages, which was intended to provide an alternative and safer passage across the railway line.
The Court therefore declined to issue a mandamus directing construction of an ROB. However, since the Railways had stated that the LHS was already under construction, the Bench directed that, if it had not yet been completed, it must be completed within four months.
The Court also considered the petitioner's contention that the LHS would frequently be flooded during the monsoons. It accordingly directed the Railways to take all necessary measures to ensure that the flooding issue was addressed.
The Bench observed that there would be “no point in spending so much of money in constructing LHS, but not making it conducive for the purpose for which it is being constructed.” It further directed that the facility should enable school children and villagers to safely cross the railway line instead of being forced to cross the tracks unauthorisedly.
The petition was accordingly disposed of with these limited directions and without any order as to costs.
Appearance:
For the Petitioner : Mr Baban Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
For the Resp-Railways : Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC