Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 311 (JHR)

Chaibasa Chamber of Commerce & Industries having its Office at Khirwal Market, Sadar Bazar, West Singhbhum v. Union of India

2014-02-28

R.BANUMATHI, SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2014
ORDER The petitioner, Chaibasa Chamber of Commerce & Industries has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking for direction upon the Railway authorities to provide facilities to the people at Chaibasa, Railway Station and also; to extend Steel Express to Barbil through railway station and; to provide an Express train in the night hours daily on Barbil (Orissa)-Chaibasa (Jharkhand)-Howarah (West Bengal) route ; to provide MEMU train or Rail Bus service between Barbil-Chaibasa-Tata; to restart passenger Trains for Barbil-Chaibasa-Asansol and Gua-Chaibasa-Kharagpur route and also; to extend important trains from Chakradharpur to Chaibasa-Tatanagar and also seeking for other directions. 2. On notice, Railways has appeared. Vide order dated 04.02.2013, this Court has passed interim order directing the respondents to place on record the sufficient number of photographs of the Railway Station, Chaibasa along with the photographs of Waiting Rooms, Retiring Rooms, Platforms, Ticket Counter blocks as well as the Parking space provided outside the Railway Station. The Railway is also directed to give the total number of Urinals, Toilets etc. provided at the platforms and the facility room. 3. In pursuance of the order dated 04.02.2013, the Railway has filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 13.03.2013 stating that Chaibasa Railway Station is a 'D' categorized Station as per the Railway Board's policy guidelines and all 'D' categorized Station facilities have been provided to the Chaibasa Railway Station. In the supplementary counter affidavit, the Railway has referred to various amenities like High Level Platform, Low Level Platform, up-gradation of both upper class (separately for ladies and gents), waiting rooms and second class waiting halls with better seating arrangements. It is also stated that the provision of Foot Over Bridge with pathway and other facilities have been provided. It is further stated that cleaning activities is outsourced to keep the station neat and clean. 4. A supplementary counter affidavit dated 19.9.2013 has been filed on behalf of respondent-Railways giving details of passenger earnings for the last four years from Gua, Talaburu, Kendposi, Barajamda, Barbil, Noamundi, Dangoaposi, Maluka, Jhinkpani and Pandrasali stations. It is stated that inspite of meager passenger earnings from all other stations except Barbil, minimum essential amenities has been provided by the Railways. It is also stated that the track between Rajkharswan up to Jaroli has been fully developed and totally electrified. It is stated that inspite of meager passenger earnings from all other stations except Barbil, minimum essential amenities has been provided by the Railways. It is also stated that the track between Rajkharswan up to Jaroli has been fully developed and totally electrified. It is further stated that the Railway administration sustains heavy pecuniary loss from the various passenger trains and the earning comes from the goods train only. However, the Railway administration has been serving the millions of passengers with utmost care and it provides adequate facility as prescribed by the Railway Board. 5. When the matter is called out, learned counsel appearing for the Railways has produced the photographs to substantiate the averments made in the supplementary counter affidavit. 6. From perusal of the photographs, it is seen that the interim order of the Court dated 04.02.2013 has been substantially complied with by the Railways. 7. In so far as prayer sought for in the present writ petition regarding running of night trains and to restart the passengers train for Barbil (Orissa)- Chaibasa (Jharkhand)-Howarah (West Bengal) route etc. are concerned, no such direction can be issued by the Court. The prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition are purely within the discretion of the Railway and depending upon the viability of running the trains. It is for the Railway authority to take any decision in this regard and no such direction can be issued in the Public Interest Litigation. 8. Accordingly, this Public Interest Litigation is dismissed.