IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC SATURDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2011 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 32140 of 2011(N) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- 1. K.K.HASSAN,S/O.KADER,AGED 56,RESIDING AT DOOR NO.34,SURABHI ROAD,PALARIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY,KOCHI.PIN- 682 024. 2. K.K.HUSSAIAN,DOOR NO.32/1858,SRA NO.34, SURABHI ROAD,PALARIVATTOM,EDAPPALLY,KOCHI -682 024. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.BOSE SRI.VINOD MADHAVAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE SECRETARY,RAILWAY BOARD, RAILWAY BHAVAN,NEW DELHI,PIN- 110 001. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER,SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI, PIN- 600 109. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF ENGINEER, HEAD QUARTERS OFFICE, WORKS BRANCH, CHENNAI.PIN- 600 003. 4. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER(WORKS), DISTRICT OFFICE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,TRIVANDRUM.PIN-695 024 R1 TO R4 BY ADV.SRI.C.S.DIAS,SC, RAILWAY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts WP(C)NO.32140/2011 APPENDIX PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19/7/2010 BEFORE THE SECRETARY,RAILWAY BOARD. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 2ND DECEMBER 2010 IN WPC NO.36036 OF 2010 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN RP NO.272/2011. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2011 RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : NIL /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO.JUDGE sts ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 32140 of 2011 N ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Petitioners claim that they purchased 1.48 cents of land during 2006 and 2007 near to the Railway property. According to the petitioner, unless Railway allows them passage, since land is surrounded by Railway lines, it is impossible to have access to the land. Therefore, they made a representation to the Railways to provide a passage. That representation was ordered to be considered in Ext.P2 judgment. Later, Railways filed a review petition before this Court contending that it was not the Secretary of the Railway Board but the General Manager, who is the competent authority to consider the representation. The review was allowed as per Ext.P3 order. Accordingly, the matter was considered by the Chief General Engineer of the Railways and Ext.P4 communication has been issued, which reads thus:- W.P.(C) No.32140/2011 : 2 : “With reference to your letter cited under reference the request has been examined in detail and it is advised that your plea for providing Level Crossing/road, across the track is not feasible in view of safety. Further it is reiterated that nearer to your requested area (Pulleppady) the existing level crossing itself has been converted as a Road Over Bridge to improve safe running of trains. Hence request of providing a Level Crossing for an individual at this location is not feasible and Railway Board has also endorsed the above decision vide Board's letter cited under ref.2.” 2. Reading of this order shows that the level crossing/road across from the railway track which was requested by the petitioners has been found not feasible from the safety point. It is also stated that the request of the petitioners to provide level crossing for themselves is not feasible and that the Railway Board has also endorsed the above decision vide letter dated 15.09.2007. W.P.(C) No.32140/2011 : 3 : 3. As far as the conclusions in Ext.P4 are concerned, there is absolutely no material to infer that these are incorrect. Once the conclusions in Ext.P4 are accepted as unassailable, then, the question is whether Ext.P4 calls for interference on technical grounds such as the order was not passed by the General Manager as ordered in Ext.P3, or that the hearing as directed in Ext.P2 was not granted. In my view, on merits, since the order deserves to be upheld, there is no reason why the order should be interfered with on technical grounds. 4. Therefore, I see no reason to interfere with Ext.P4. Writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/03/12 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge