JUDGMENT : 1. Both the writ petitions on similar lines assail the withdrawal of Un-reserved First Class coaches from the Venad Express and Parashuram Express, two popular passenger trains, regularly used by the commuters travelling the length of this State. The petitioners though challenge the withdrawal from a public utility service, do not urge the above writ petition as a Public Interest Litigation; but would rather project the same as having caused personal prejudice since they were all regular commuters in the said trains, coming to and out of Ernakulam for work. By the various documents in the writ petitions, the petitioners would assert their locus standi by producing the First Class tickets issued to them by the Railways and their professional activities centered at Ernakulam, which necessitates the daily travel, in the aforesaid trains. 2. Both the writ petitions allege the withdrawal to be unilateral and without any rationale. Petitioners in both the writ petitions also rely on two Circulars of the Railways, produced at Exhibit P4 and P5 in W.P.(C).No.8758 of 2015. The Circulars are relied on to contend that there is a mandate of the Railway Board that when there is sufficient demand for First Class season tickets, then there should be attached a First Class Chair Car or AC Chair Car coach for the exclusive use of First Class Season Ticket holders. Section 27 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for brevity “the Act”) is relied on to contend that though the use of ‘rolling stock’ is within the discretion of the Railway administration, such discretion has to be exercised in a fair and reasonable manner. The coaches constitute ‘rolling stock’. Section 50 of the Act is pointed out to contend that any person who intends to travel on payment of the fare shall be supplied with a ticket and that could be in any class of carriage. 3. W.P.(C).No.16650 of 2015 goes one step ahead, in alleging violation of fundamental rights and claim a preferential treatment by reason of the financial capacity of the petitioners therein. Contentions of discrimination, legitimate expectation, arbitrariness and unreasonableness are also raised; without any substantiation. The petitioners in the said writ petition also very graciously concede to a compromise, wherein they could be provided an equivalent alternate accommodation, without specifying what it is they contemplate as a suitable alternate arrangement. 4. Contentions of discrimination, legitimate expectation, arbitrariness and unreasonableness are also raised; without any substantiation. The petitioners in the said writ petition also very graciously concede to a compromise, wherein they could be provided an equivalent alternate accommodation, without specifying what it is they contemplate as a suitable alternate arrangement. 4. At the outset it is to be noticed that no contention of violation of fundamental rights, arbitrariness or discrimination much less a legitimate expectation can be urged on the question of withdrawal of First Class coaches from a passenger train carried on as a public utility service. If the season tickets issued are current and valid for future travel, the only claim would be for refund. 5. The Railway has filed a counter affidavit in W.P.(C). No.8758 of 2015. It has been specifically averred, on the basis of Exhibits R-4(1) and R-4(2), that Un-reserved First Class coaches of Venad Express and Parashuram Express were withdrawn for reason of the conventional First Class coaches used in the said trains having crossed the safety limits by reason only of age and the Railway Board having decided to stop the manufacture of the conventional First Class coaches. The safety aspect is projected on the basis of the Codal Manual framed by the Ministry of Railway (Railway Board), New Delhi fixing the life of a coach at 25 years. On a coach completing the said period, it is withdrawn and scrapped considering only the safety aspect of the passengers. It is also specifically averred that the manufacture of such coaches have been stopped from 1990 onwards. 6. The reliance placed on the Circulars, according to this Court, is of no significance. Primarily it is to be noticed that both the writ petitions do not urge any widespread demand of First Class Season Ticket in the sector. At best it can be said that the nine petitioners in W.P.(C).Nop.16650 of 2015 and the sole petitioner in the other writ petition (W.P.(C).NO.8758 of 2015) raised a demand for First Class coaches. Further, there can be no mandate in Exhibit P4 or Exhibit P5 to provide First Class Chair Cars/AC Chair Cars; but only confers a discretion on the administration of such sectors to provide for such coaches if there is sufficient demand for First Class Season tickets. Further, there can be no mandate in Exhibit P4 or Exhibit P5 to provide First Class Chair Cars/AC Chair Cars; but only confers a discretion on the administration of such sectors to provide for such coaches if there is sufficient demand for First Class Season tickets. It is also specifically stated in Exhibit P5 that in sections where there is no First Class coaches, First Class Season tickets will not be issued at all. Hence, travel in a particular class can be insisted upon, or a ticket can be demanded on payment of sufficient fare in a particular class, under Section 50, only if there is such a facility available in that sector. The mere fact that First Class coaches were available in the two trains does not mean that identical facility should be provided for all times. The discretionary exercise is only to be regulated by the known canons of fairness and reasonableness and in the present case, practicability too, which has to be left to the administration to decide. The discrimination alleged insofar as providing for first class coaches in MEMU trains is answered as such coaches being of different dimensions, which cannot be attached to conventional coaches. 7. The decision cited of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar v. State of Haryana (2013 (4) KLT SN 109 (C.No.111) SC) was rendered on a question of successor-in-office reviewing an order. There is no such cause of action urged herein. This Court, in fact, would shy away from holding that the particular action of the Railways would be subject to judicial review. Reliance can be placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. J.D.Suryavanshi ( AIR 2011 SC 3605 ). The same arose from an order of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation, wherein the petitioner prayed inter alia for additional berths in trains running between a particular sector. Paragraph 8 is relevant and apposite in this context: “Railway administration is a specialized field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It has limited resources and limited number of railway engines and railway coaches, particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC-I class coaches. Railway will have to distribute and utilize the available resources and the available Rolling Stock equitably, uniformly, and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It has limited resources and limited number of railway engines and railway coaches, particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC-I class coaches. Railway will have to distribute and utilize the available resources and the available Rolling Stock equitably, uniformly, and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. It is possible that in a particular section there may be hardship, inconveniences and need for introduction of more trains, better timings, and better facilities. But one sector is not India. We shudder to think what would happen if every High Court starts giving directions to the Railway to provide additional trains, additional coaches and change timings wherever they feel that there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. Even in the State of Madhya Pradesh, we are sure that apart from Gwalior-Indore sector, there are other sectors which may be facing similar hardships and problems. The Railway does not exist to cater to a particular sector. It is for the Railway administration to decide where, how and when trains or coaches should be added or the timings should be changed. The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or the technical skills required for running the Railways. The High Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector without having any material or information about the requirements of other sectors available infrastructure, existing demands and constraints, safety requirements etc. Nor can the High Court direct introduction of trains or additional coaches of a particular category or direct change in timings of a train. Changing the timing of a train is not a simple process, but requires co-ordinated efforts, as it would affect the timings of other trains. There are also different types of trains - express trains, superfast trains, passenger trains, goods trains, with different speeds and priorities. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one sector for improving the functioning will led to chaos involving technical snags and safety problems”. 8. The reliance to Section 27 and Section 50 is also of no consequence. The utilisation of rolling stock is not for the passengers to dictate; nor for this Court to regulate. Any attempt to pick and choose one train or one sector for improving the functioning will led to chaos involving technical snags and safety problems”. 8. The reliance to Section 27 and Section 50 is also of no consequence. The utilisation of rolling stock is not for the passengers to dictate; nor for this Court to regulate. The counter affidavit of the Railways also indicate that withdrawal of coaches were effected by Exhibits R-4(1) and R-4(2) and by the very same orders substituted the First Class coaches with Non-AC Chair Car coaches. The contention of the petitioners in W.P.(C).No.16650 of 2015 that such coaches are over-crowded and they do not have enough space or convenience so as to carry on their professional activities, during the travel, is only to be noticed to be rejected, especially in the context of the large number of people availing of the travel facilities offered by the Railways. The State admittedly is one of the most populous in the country. No person can claim a privilege to travel more conveniently than another merely on account of the wight of their purse, especially when such demand is made from a public transport. One would have to travel with the masses in the conveniences offered by the public transport system or enable oneself the extra convenience with the proclaimed financial capacity expending ones own money. This Court does not find any reason to entertain the above writ petitions. The writ petitions are found to be totally devoid of merit and the same are dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs. However if there are any current season tickets at the time of withdrawal of the First Class coaches, then those commuters shall be refunded the amount paid for the prospective period.