LexANIL KUMAR GUPTA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2016] 5 S.C.R. 939 ANIL KUMAR GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Writ Peittion (Civil) No.68 of 2011) JULYOS,2016 [T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.J Constitution •Of India - Art. 32 - Petition under - In public interest - In respect of a tragedy which ensued pursuant to a recruitment drive by Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP) where more than two lakhs aspiring candidates reached Bareilly (U.P.) - In view of swelling number, the ITBP authorities postponed the drive - Thereafter the crowd rushed to railway station - Hundreds of people climbed the rooftop of a train - At 60 km from Bare illy an accident took place at Railway over-bridge as the gap between the train roof and the bridge was not enough - This resulted in around 20 deaths and injuries to many - Petitioners sought directions inter alia for finding out reasons for loss of lives, for grant of compensation to the victims and for laying down guidelines for necessary precautions and care to be taken to avoid such tragedy - Railways in .. its enquiry report stated that the cause of accident was not of railway staff - However, in para. 9.2 of the report it was recommended that Railway must ensure that there are no infringements to dimensions as per India11 Railways, Schedule of Dime11sions, Revised 2004 for overhead fixed structures - ITBP in its affidavit stated that sta11ding Order No. I of 2011dated14.2.2011 and standing Order No. 5 of 2013 dated 26.2.2013 ensuring that only 600 candidates would be called for recruitment in one drive - Held: Railway administration was responsible for the accident - Reasonable care was expected from the administration as administration alone was in a positio11 to know about the infringement with regard to certain structures and possible implications if the trains were to run at a great speed (7 5 km ph) with large number of people on roof-top - Direction to Railway Administration to pay due compensatio11 to the kin of the dead and to the injured - In order to avoid such tragedy, Railway Administration is directed to have assessment of infringement and 939 A B c D E F G H 940 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2016] 5 S.C.R. create a road-map to remove them - A Committee is directed to be constituted to have assessment of such infringements and chalk out action plan to remove such infringements - Further all Central Police Organisations are directed to issue guidelines or Standing Orders akin to Standing Order Nos. I of 2011 dated 14.2.20111 and 5 of 2013 dated 26.2.2013 - Compensation. Disposing of the petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The Report dated 09.09.2011 indicates that requests were made by the Railway and Civil Officials to get the roof riders come down from the roof and announcements were made in that behalf. Though the roof riders refused to come down, in view of the volatile situation, a decision was taken to move the train out of Bareilly. According to the Report, the civil and police officials insisted for the movement of the train as quickly as possible with an idea to disperse the crowd. One may accept this as a reasonable and proper exercise, as the crowd had to be dispersed which had congregated in Bareilly. However, this does not explain and justify further movement of the train for more than 60 K.Ms from Bareilly Station. What is more worrisome is that the fact that train was running at a speed of 75 kilometers per hour. Those who were in charge of Railway Administration in the concerned Divisions ought to have taken sufficient precaution. The Administration can certainly be taken to be aware of the fact that the Foot-Over Bridges or any structures on the way could possibly be a hindrance and could have caused such incident with people in large number on roof top. The Administration alone would be in a position to know about the existence of infringements with regard to certain structures and what could be possible implications if the train were to run at a great speed with large number of people on roof top. Reasonable care would naturally be expected of those incharge of the Administration. Therefore, the Court cannot agree with the conclusion in the Report that Railway Administration was not responsible. [Para 12-13] (952-F-H; 953-A-C] Chairman, Railway Board v. Chandrima Das (2000) 2 SCC 465: 2000 (1) SCR 480; MS. Grewal v. Deep Chand Sood (2001) 8 SCC 151: 2001 (2) Suppl. SCR 156 - relied on. ANIL KUMAR GUP
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.