Civil Writ Petition No.17487 of 2005 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17487 of 2005 Date of decision: September 10, 2008. Jagmohan Singh Bhatti ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Petitioner in person. Shri Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for UOI, respondent No.1. Shri H.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondent No.2. Shri Rameshwar Malik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.3. Shri Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondents No.4. ORDER T.S. Thakur, CJ – (Oral) This petition has been filed in public interest. It brings into focus problems arising out of unmanned railway crossings and the human tragedies that take place at such vulnerable places. It also prays for a Civil Writ Petition No.17487 of 2005 -: 2 :- direction to the respondents to pay compensation to the next of kin of those who have lost their lives in such accidents at the rate of Rs.10 lacs for each dead and Rs.1 lac for each one injured in the mishaps On behalf of the respondent-railways, it is pointed out that the question whether unmanned railway crossings should be manned by the railways and matters incidental thereto are being examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a petition filed in public interest in which their Lordships have issued various directions from time to time. A copy of order dated 25.7.2007 passed by their Lordships has, in that regard, been placed on record. From a reading of the said order, it does appear that the question relating to the desirability of unmanned railway crossings being manned to prevent accidents, is now engaging the attention of their Lordships. In the light of the pendency of the said proceedings before the Supreme Court, we consider it unnecessary to continue with the present parallel proceedings. It goes without any saying that the directions, if any, that might be issued by their Lordships, shall take care of the problem of unmanned railway crossings in the entire country, including the States of Punjab and Haryana. In so far as the question of award of compensation to those who got killed in accidents on such unmanned railway crossings or otherwise is concerned, the petitioner who appears in person, fairly conceded that he has no idea whether any claims have been made on behalf of those who were killed in such accidents and if so, the ultimate result of the proceedings in which such claims were made. In the circumstances, it will not be feasible for us to undertake an exercise and determine as to what amount, if any, should be awarded to the next of kin of the deceased victims of such accidents or those who were injured in the same. All that we need say is Civil Writ Petition No.17487 of 2005 -: 3 :- that Mr. Bhatti may, if so advised, file a fresh petition should he, after proper verification of the facts, come to know that any of the dependents of those who were killed remains to be compensated suitably. Reserving liberty to the petitioner to do so, this petition is disposed of, but in the circumstances without any order as to costs. [ T.S. Thakur ] Chief Justice September 10, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge