1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR. Writ Petition No.1929 of 2008 [A.C. Yadav & ors. Vs. State of Mah. & ors.] Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, Adv., for the petitioners. Mr. O.D. Kakde, AGP for Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. N.P. Lambat, Adv., for respondent no.3. Mr. S.K. Mishra, Asstt. Solicitor General for Govt. of India. ----- CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE AND A.H. JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 15th October,2008. 1. Heard Mr. B.G. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, who have moved this Public Interest Litigation Petition seeking directions to the State Govt., as well as Railway Authorities to take timely steps to widen the bridge over the Chhindwara narrow gauge line and located at Old Kamptee-Kalmana Road. 2. Affidavits-in-Reply have been filed by the respondent no.2 as well as respondent no.3, and there is no dispute that the subject bridge is required to be widened for the public safety, 2 to avoid any untoward incident resulting into a major mishap. However, the State Govt., and the Railways appear to be at loggerheads as to who should take the responsibility of widening the bridge. 3. In his Affidavit, the respondent no.3 has stated that the Railways would undertake the widening of the bridge, provided the State Govt., is willing to bear the financial burden in terms of Section 19 (2) of the Indian Railways Act, 1989. The respondent no.3, therefore, states that the required funds are to be provided by the State Govt. 4. On the other hand, the Affidavit-in- Reply filed by respondent no.2 states that it is entirely the responsibility of the Indian Railways to widen the bridge and to provide for the funds required for the same. 5. Our attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 19 (3) of the Railways Act, 1989. The said provision reads as under :- “19 (3) - In the case of any difference of opinion between the railway administration and the State Govt., or the Local Authority, as the case may be, over any of the matters mentioned in Sub-section (1), it shall be referred to the Central Govt., whose decision thereon shall be final.” 3 6. It is, therefore, necessary that the Central Govt. intervenes in the matter and sorts out the differences between the State Govt., on one hand and the South-East Central Railways on the other. 7. We also direct the Principal Secretary, Public Works Department, Govt. of Maharashtra, Mantralaya, Mumbai, to take up the subject issue with the Ministry of Railways at the earliest possible, so that the widening of the bridge concerned is taken up expeditiously. 8. At the same time, the respondent no.4 may take preventive steps to divert the traffic during peak hours as per the proposal sent by the Senior Police Inspector [Traffic Branch], North Nagpur. 9. We, therefore, direct the Registrar [Judicial} to forward a copy of this order to the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, New Delhi, forthwith. 10. Writ Petition is disposed off in terms of the above directions. Judge Judge |Hedau| 4