LexUNION OF INDIA & ORS versus J.D. SURYAVANSHI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011) 11 S.C.R. 158 UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI (Civil Appeal No. 7658 of 2011) SEPTEMBER 5, 2011 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.] CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950.· c Article 226 - Writ petition - Scope of - In a writ petition filed as a public interest litigation High Court issuing series of interim orders effecting changes in timings of several trains, adding of coaches to several trains etc. - In some cases, Railways informed that demand for further trains! 0 coaches would not be feasible - However, High Court directing the Railways to provide a full AC-II coach in Intercity Express, and the General Manager (Traffic) to file his personal affidavit - Held: GoiPg into details of railway administration and train schedule management are totally alien to judicial review and beyond judicially manageable E standards - Railway administration is a specialized field - fl has to cater to the needs of the entire country - High Court cannot interfere in regard to one sector without any material or information nor can it direct introduction of trains or additional coaches of a particular category or change in F timings of a train - It has been repeatedly emphasised that courts should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day- to-day functioning of departments of governments or statutory bodies - The malaise of interference in the functioning of Railway administration is a matter of concern - Impugned G order of High Court set aside and it would dispose of the writ petition itself without any fwther directions of similar nature - Administrative Law - Judicial review - Railways - Public interest litigation. H 158 UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI 159 In compliance of the interim directions of the High A Court in a writ petition filed as public interest litigation, the Railway administration effected changes in the timings of several trains and also added coaches to several trains. However, in some cases, the Railway administration informed the High Court that the demand 8 for further- trains/coaches would not be feasible. The HJgh Court directed the General Manager (Traffic),· R~Q:ways to file his personal affidavit and further directed tbe'Railways to provide a full AC-II coach in Intercity Express. For alleged 'disobedience of one of the interim C orders, a ccintempt petition was also filed against the Railways. Allowing the appeal filed by the Railways, the Court HELD: 1.1. Railway administration is a specialized o field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It has to distribute and utilize the available resources and the available Rolling· Stock equitably, uniformly, and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. The ·High Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector E without having any material or information about the requirements of other sectors available infrastructure, existing demands and constraints, safety requirements etc. Nor ~an the High Court direct introduction of trains or additional coaches of a particular category or direct F change in timings of a train. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one sector for improving the functioning will lead to chaos involving technical snags and safety problems. [para 8] [165-A-G] Union of India v. Nagesh - 2002 (7) SCC 603; 8a/co G Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 511 = 2002 (2) SCC 333; Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India 2003 (2) SCR 1085 =2003 (4) SCC 289; and Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain 2007 (5 ) SCR 7 = 2007 H 160 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A (4) sec 737- relied on Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans 1982 (2) All ER 141 - referred to. 1.2. This court has repeatedly warned that courts · B should resist the temptation to usurp the power of the Executive by entering into arenas which are exclusively within the domain of the executive, and should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to-day functioning of any departments of governments or C statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of roles has been voiced. [para 9.-10) [168-C· E] Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998) - referred to. D 1.3. The record of the case shows that Railway had made all efforts to comply with the requirements/earlier directions of the High Court. Courtesies extended by R
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.