IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 OP.No. 6374 of 2002(H) ---------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MAHIN KALLATRA, S/O. LATE KALLATRA ABDUL KHADER HAJI,AGED 42 YEARS RESIDING AT MUBARAK MANZIL, P.O.KALANAD,KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.SHIRAZ ABDULLA RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, OLAVAKODE. 3. DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION DOUBLING), SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KANNUR. 4. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTION DOUBLING SOUTHERN RAILWAY, KASARAGOD. 5. PALLIKARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PALLIKARA. THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP NO.11284/2002 IN O.P. NO.6374/2002 DISMISSED: SD/-(C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE.) 16.7.2008 SD/-(V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE.) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF MASS REPRESENTATION DT.22.3.2001 SUBMITTED BEFORE 2ND RESPONDENT. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.P. No.6374 of 2002 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The O.P. is filed for direction to the Railways to restore the unmanned level cross which was closed during doubling of the Railway line at Pallikkara Village. According to the petitioner, the pucca road crosses the Railway line and an unmanned level cross was permitted by the Railway before laying of the second parallel Rail line. The road was blocked by installing iron poles during doubling of the Railway line. However, Railway has not removed the iron poles and restored the level cross is the case of the petitioner. It is certainly unsafe to maintain unmanned level cross because there has been increase in Rail traffic. However, if overbridge is not permissible and unmanned level crossing is the only solution, then Railway has to restore it by taking all precautions. The O.P. is accordingly disposed of directing the second respondent to take steps for restoration of unmanned level crossing, if it was there earlier and if it is 2 required, to instal it after taking all safety measures. However, if the level crossing is closed on account of availability of overbridge nearby, then there is no need for the Railway to restore it. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms