IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1930 of 2009(D) ----------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): -------------------- 1. P.N. PANKAJAKSHAN PILLAI, AGED 66 YEARS, S/O.K.P. KESAVA PILLAI, RESIDING AT RAIL VIEW, DOOR NO. CC 62/66, OLD. ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O, COCHIN - 682018, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. M.J. MATHEW, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O. JOSEPH DEVASSIA, RESIDING AT MAMPALLI, DOOR NO. CC 62/6R, OLD. ST. AUGUSTINE ROAD, ERNAKULAM NORTH.P.O, COCHIN - 682018, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.G.SHYAM RAJ RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS, PARK TOWN.P.O, CHENNAI - 3. 3. THE DIVSIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 5. THE ASSISTANT DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, ERNAKULAM JUNCTION, COCHIN - 682 016. ADV. SRI.VARGHESE P.THOMAS, SR.SC,RAILWAYS FOR R1-5 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 1930 OF 2009 (D) ==================== Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioners are residents in houses situated on the side of the railway track between Ernakulam Town and Ernakulam Junction. It is stated that a passage was provided to them for enjoyment of their properties since 1905, when the track was laid. According to them, this was suddenly blocked by the 5th respondent from 12th of January 2009 and it is with that complaint, they have filed the writ petition wherein they have also stated that both the petitioners have applied for Way leave as provided under Section 17 of the Railways Act, 1989 by Exts. P1 and P2 addressed to the 4th respondent. 2. It is stated that subsequently they were made to remit Rs.4,000/- each and that by Ext.P9, they were asked to submit a revised proposal also. It is stated that by Ext.P10, although the petitioners submitted a revised proposal as directed in Ext.P9, despite all that, orders are not passed giving them Way leave and it was therefore that the writ petition is filed for a declaration that the respondents are bound to provide passage in front of the petitioners property and also regarding the petitioners right of free ingress and egress into and out of their properties WPC 1930/09 :2 : as enjoyed by them. 3. When the matter came up for orders before this Court on 19/1/2009, the case was adjourned with a direction to the standing counsel to obtain instructions in the matter. Standing Counsel today also made available to me letter dated 21/1/2009 received from the 3rd respondent, the relevant portion of which reads as under. 1) The request of the petitioners for way leave facility has been examined at site by the concerned officials. From the report given it is seen that the location for which Way leave or Right of Way asked for is very close to running line (At Km.104/900- 105/100 between Ernakulam Junction & Ernakulam Town Railway Stations) 2) There is high chance of collision of trains with private vehicles plying over. 3) To avoid such collisions as well as hitting of motor vehicles with Railway Electrification masts movement of road vehicles parallel to track is to be prevented and hence rail posts had to be erected. 4) in the light of the above railway safety aspects the competent authority cannot provide the way leave facility sought for. 5) The charges of Rs.4000 remitted by the petitioners are only the initial processing charges collected for considering the application. After the remittance of charges, Railway has completed the feasibility study and found that it will not be possible to grant way leave facility, from the safety of trains point of view. 4. In the light of the safety angle that is highlighted in the WPC 1930/09 :3 : instructions given to the standing counsel, I do not think it appropriate that this Court should decide the claim, atleast at this stage, since the representations made by the petitioners for Way leave as provided under Section 17 of the Railways Act by Exts.P1, P2 and P10 are pending consideration of the 4th respondent. At this stage, I think it only appropriate that the 4th respondent takes a decision on the representations so made. 5. Therefore, I direct the 4th respondent to consider and pass orders on Exts.P1, P2 and P10, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 2 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp