JUDGMENT : K.G. Balakrishnan, CJI., Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that in India there are approximately 18,200 unmanned level crossings and in these unmanned level crossings several accidents take place and the casualties are also much more. The petitioner has brought to our notice the various accidents which recently happened i.e. on 25th January, 2009, 11 persons were killed and 30 persons were injured in U.P. at an unmanned level crossing in Rae Bareli district. In that accident, there was heavy fog and the drivers of the tractor-trolley and the truck could not see the oncoming Kanpur passenger/express train as a result the accident had taken place and 8 people riding in the tractor trolley died and the cleaner of the tractor also died on the spot. In yet another accident at Firozpur, 6 school children who were going to school in a school bus died and twenty one injured. It appears that no conductor was in the bus and it was alleged that because of the gross negligence of the driver, the train hit the bus and the children died. Yet another accident at Panipat-Jind railway section took place wherein mini truck collided with the train and three persons died. Several such accidents had happened previously also and the petitioner prays that these unmanned level crossings should be manned with sufficient persons and there should be signals at the level crossings or there should be over-bridges or any other such facility where such accidents take place. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Railways stated that a comprehensive policy is proposed to be evolved but it would be difficult for the Railways to have signals at all the level crossings. It is also stated that at every such Railway gate, there has to be at least four persons employed and it will be difficult for the Railways economically to provide such safeguards at every Railway gate as in all there are approximately 18,200 unmanned level crossings. 3. In our opinion, Railways can think of having some safety measures to avoid such serious accidents. Wherever there is obstruction in seeing oncoming trains some measures can be taken to avoid such obstructions by installing the display boards with luminous paints or any such other mechanism. 3. In our opinion, Railways can think of having some safety measures to avoid such serious accidents. Wherever there is obstruction in seeing oncoming trains some measures can be taken to avoid such obstructions by installing the display boards with luminous paints or any such other mechanism. The Railways can also, in consultation with the local bodies or the district administration provide speed breakers on the roads near the railway level crossings. 4. The Railways can also think of engaging some local people as part-time workers in thickly populated places or the accident prone areas/ zones near the railway crossings for purpose of avoiding accidents. We hope that Railways would evolve such policy by which some of these accidents can be avoided in future. We direct the learned counsel appearing for the Railways to suggest a comprehensive policy on the next date of hearing as to how these accidents at railway crossings could be avoided or minimised. 5. List in the last week of July, 2009.