FEDERATION OF RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1085 · Decided: 13-03-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RAJENDRA BABU · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

FEDERATION OF RAILWAY OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA 
MARCH 13, 2003 
[S. RAJENDRA BABU AND G.P. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Railways Act, I989-Section 3-Formation of new railway zones-
Recommendation for formation of 4 zones in I984 by Railway Reforms 
Committee approved by Study Group-Thereafter formation of 3 more zones- C 
Views from different quarters against the formation-Formation of 7 zones 
challenged as violative of Section 3 as the same was not on the basis of 
administrative efficiency-Formation of 3 zones not being based on expert 
study alleged to be malajide-Petition dismissed by High Court-In Special 
Leave Petition, held: Formation of the zones is valid-Factors considered for 
formation of zones by Study Group are relevant for efficient administration of D 
railways-Allegation of malafide not admissible as the same is vague and 
since concerned alleged parties not made party to the proceedings. 
Policy Decision of Government-Interference with in Judicial Review-
Scope of-Held, scope of judicial review in such matters is limited-Court not 
to interfere with such matters unless the policy is inconsistent with the E 
constitution or law or is arbitrary or is abuse of power. 
Judicial Interference-In administrative decisions-Criteria for-Held: 
Interference not permitted if Government taking into consideration all relevant 
factors, eschew from considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within F 
parameters of law. 
Administrative Law: 
Malafides-Allegation of-Held, should not be vaguely made and it 
must be specific and clear. 
Railway Reforms Committee recommended in 1984 for formation 
G 
of 3 additional Railway zones on the basis of criterion of workload, and 
formation of 4 additional zones on the basis of criterion of manpower. 
Thereafter a Study Group, constituted to go into the question of 
reorganisation of Railway zones and divisions, recommended setting up H 
1085 
1086 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 2 S.C.R. 
A of 4 additional Railway zones on the basis of workload and accessibility 
of activity centers/remote points from its respective zonal/divisional 
headquarters. Ministry of Railways accepted the recommendations. 
However, Union Cabinet deferred the proposal and called for more 
material from the Ministry of Railways. Thereafter Union Cabinet 
B considered the proposals as to formation of six new zones taking into 
account financial viability, traffic growth and the norms of carving out a 
zone. Ministry of Railways announced formation of six new zones. 
Thereafter, Union Cabinet headed by the Prime Minister, approved 
creation of new seventh zone. It was decided to shift the Headquarters of 
South Western Railway from Bangalore to Hubli. From 1999 to 2001 the 
C work of zones had been progressing. During the period Railway Board 
had expressed its reservations in going ahead with formation of zones 
mainly due to financial crunch. In November 2001, Minister of Railways 
clarified in the Parliament about the formation of new zones. He also stated 
D 
that slow progress in the work was attributable to resource crunch. A writ 
petition was filed before Calcutta High Court challenging Notification of 
setting up of a new zone, wherein it was held that setting up of new zone, 
being pure question of policy decision, cannot be adjudicated in a Public 
Interest Litigation. 
A detailed note of reorganisation of the Railways was sent to the 
E Union Cabinet to keep it apprised of the current situation and the views 
of the Standing Committee of Parliament on Railways (1996-97), Railway 
Convention Committee (1996), Railway Federations, the Deputy 
Comptroller and Auditor General (1999), the Comptroller and Auditor 
General (2001) and the comments of Rakesh Mohan Committee (2001) 
against formation of additional Railway zones were also placed before the 
F Cabinet, but the Cabinet did not review its previous decision. 
Petitioners filed writ petition before Delhi High Court, challenging 
formation of seven Railway zones as violative of Section 3 of Railways Act, 
1989, on the grounds that recommendations of Railway Reforms 
Committee has become outdated in view of later developments; that the 
G formation of three zones namely Hazipur, Bilaspur and Bhubaneshwar 
being not based on expert study was based on extraneous considerations 
not germane to efficiency in Railways; and that even policy decisions of 
the Government could be interfered with if it was arbitrary or malafide 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.