(1) WP PIL-15.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION NO. 15 OF 2011 Prof. Manohar S/o Babarao Dhonde Age : 44 years, Occu.: Service & Social Work, R/o. Plot No.13, Ajanta Housing Society, Near Dargah Road, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Union of India Through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 115 2. Central Railway Board, Through its Chairman, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi - 110 115 3. General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail-Nilayam, Secundarabad 4. Divisional Railway Manager, DRM Office Complex, Near Airport, Sangvi, Nanded - 431 606 5. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Secretary, Revenue & Forest Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32 RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. S.B. Talekar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. P.P. More, A.G.P. for the Respondent-State. Mr. M.N. Navandar, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 4 ..... (2) WP PIL-15.2011 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 16TH NOVEMBER, 2011 ORAL ORDER: 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. The petitioner prays for quashing and setting aside the decision of the Central Railway Board, sanctioning preliminary engineering-cum- traffic survey for Nanded-Bidar new BG line, as indicated through the letter dated 3.2.2011 and further seeks a direction to the respondents to reconsider the decision and examine the possibility of the new Nanded-Bidar route through Loha-Malakoli- Malegaon(Khandoba/Yatra)-Ahmedpur-Chakur-Latur-Udgir- Kamalnagar-Bhalki-Bidar. Learned counsel for the petitioner Shri Talekar submits that if the new Nanded-Bidar railway track is laid through Loha- Ahmedpur-Chakur-Latur Road etc., it will be saving atleast 1/3rd amount on construction of the track. Shri Talekar submits that on the contrary, if the railway as proposed by the authorities i.e. Nanded- (3) WP PIL-15.2011 Mugat-Amdura-Marthala-Santhapur-Halbarga-Bidar, is to be accepted the same would incur laying down of more railway tracks and consequently, result in huge additional expenditure of the State exchequer. 3. The issue, as to which alternative railway tracks are to be examined and which alternative is to be accepted, is purely in the domain of policy making. The Supreme Court has time and again held that this Court should not interfere in the policy matters, unless the policy is found to be palpably arbitrary or unreasonable. It has been further held that unreasonableness should be of such extent that it should be within the ambit of principles of 'Wednesbury's principles of reasonableness'. 4. In the affidavit in reply, filed on behalf of the respondent-railway authorities, the respondents have referred to Rule 201 of Engineering Code of Indian Railways. In the reply, it has been stated that the route as suggested by the petitioner would take a round about at Latur and the said Nanded-Bidar route would have distance of 210 kms., whereas the route for which the survey is conducted, would (4) WP PIL-15.2011 provide for direct railway link between Nanded-Bidar and the distance of which is 186 kms. It has been further stated that new lines are meant for fostering the development of area falling enroute and and not for merely connecting the end stations/important stations. The reply specifically states that: " In instant case, proposed alignment is meant for developing 150 KM enroute via Mugat (ex. station)- Amdura-Marathala- Kusnoor- Naigaon-Narsi - Kamraspalli- Adampur - Khanapur - Degloor -Karadkhed- Markhel - Hangegaon - Aurad -Santpur- Dhupatmangan-Bailur-Halbarga, whereas the route suggested by the petitioner will merely develop 90 Km (Approx) only. Thus, larger public will be served by following the alignment proposed by Railway." Perusal of the additional affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent-authorities dated 08.11.2011 would reveal that the respondent-authorities have also collected the information regarding the present industries available in the project region, prospects of future industries those are likely to come up in (5) WP PIL-15.2011 the area. It has been stated in the affidavit-in- reply that the information has been sought from various sugar factories, the Maharashtra Krishi & Audyogik Vikas Mahamandal, in order to assess the rate of return and viability of the project. 5. It can thus be seen that while examining the feasibility of a particular project various factors are required to be taken into consideration. We do not possess expertise in these matters, which are basically technical and socio-economic-political matters. No doubt that the residents on the proposed line, which the petitioners are insisting upon, may have a desire to have the railway line through their area. However, that cannot be permitted to come in the way of the development of another area, wherein the dozens of villages and number of cities are situated. The proposal is for a direct railway link between Nanded to Bidar. In the said proposal, it has been found that the route is only of 186 Kms, whereas in the route suggested by the petitioner the distance is 210 kms. (6) WP PIL-15.2011 6. At the cost of repetition, we may record that we do not possess any expertise in these matters. Jurisdiction in the Public Interest Litigation is expected to be exercised by this Court, to do away with the injustice, which is being done to the citizens of this country, who on account of some constraints, are not in a position to approach this Court. If the relief, as sought in the present Petition is granted, it will be nothing else but to encroach upon the area of policy making, which is exclusively within the domain of the Executive. As it is, there is lot of criticism about the exercise of the jurisdiction by the higher Judiciary in such matters and it has been time and again stated that the Courts are transgressing the limits of judicial activism and entering into the judicial adventurism. 7. Apart from that the respondent-authorities have been magnanimous in their attitude by observing as under : "I say and submit that, petitioner is free to make representation to connect Latur Road from Nanded directly, instead of finding fault with the Survey already (7) WP PIL-15.2011 conducted which is made after following the due routine and regular procedure, as has been conducted by the Railway Administration in whole over the Indian Country." . It can thus clearly be seen that the respondent-authorities are not averse to connecting Latur Road with Nanded. The petitioner rather than stalling the progress of direct Nanded-Bidar line, as could be seen from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents would foster development of various villages and cities, exert upon the competent authorities for having a railway link between Nanded and Latur. 8. We do not find that any case is made out for interference in the present Public Interest Litigation. The Public Interest Litigation is therefore dismissed. 9. At this stage, Shri Talekar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner graciously states that the petitioner is not interested in withdrawing the amount of ` 30,000/- (` Thirty (8) WP PIL-15.2011 Thousand), which is deposited by him and the same be transferred to the High Court Advocates' Bar Association Library at Aurangabad as donation on behalf of the petitioner. Sd/- Sd/- [M. T. JOSHI, J.] [B. R. GAVAI, J.] arp/