Bombay High Court
Khairipura - Binaki Mangalwari ... vs The Union Of India on 23 December, 2010
Bench: V.C. Daga, A. B. Chaudhari
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY :
NAGPUR BENCH : N A G P U R.
WRIT PETITION No. 5086 OF 2007
1. Khairipura - Binaki Mangalwari Premnagar
Niwasi Action Committee
through its Secretary/Convener
Rashid Musa Haider @ Rashid Bhai Kachwala
occupation : Business,
r/o Khairipura, Nagpur.
2. Ajay s/o Kamalaprsad Dubey,
Occupation : Business,
r/o Shankar Bagh, Nagpur.
3. Ajay s/o Anant Dalal,
Occupation : Business,
r/o Prem Nagar, Nagpur. ... PETITIONERS.
-VERSUS -
1. The Union of India,
through its Secretary,
Ministry of Railways, New Delhi.
2. The State of Maharashtra
through its Secretary,
Deptt. Of Urban Development,
Mantralaya, Mumbai-32.
3. The Divisional Railway Manager,
South East Central Railway,
Kingsway, Nagpur.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:43:23 :::
2
4. The Nagpur Improvement Trust
through its Chairman, Near LIC Square,
Nagpur.
5. The Collector,
Nagpur.
6. The Municipal Corporation of Nagpur,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
7. Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation Ltd.,
through its Chairman,
Near Patwardhan High School, Sitabuldi, Nagpur.
8. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Traffic),
Near Ladies Club Lawns,
Civil Lines, Nagpur. ... RESPONDENTS.
....
Mr. Z.A. Haq Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mr. R.G. Agrawal Advocate for Respondents 1 an 3.
Mr. N.W. Sambre, Govt. Pleader, for Respondents 2, 5 and 8.
Mr. R.O. Chhabra Advocate for Res. no.4.
Mr. S.K. Mishra Advocate for Respondent no.6.
Mrs. B.H. Dangre, Addl. Govt. Pleader for Respondent no.7.
....
CORAM : V.C. DAGA & A.B. CHAUDHARI, JJ.
RESERVED ON : 20.12.2010.
PRONOUNCED ON : 23 DECEMBER, 2010.
rd
J U D G M E N T (Per A.B. Chaudhari, J.) :
Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent
of learned counsel for rival parties.
2. The present writ petition is in the nature of Public Interest
Litigation and was heard from time to time and various orders were also
passed. It is seen that respondent no.7- Maharashtra State Road
Development Corporation has constructed a Fly Over for catering the needs
of the commuters of Itwari, Gandhibagh and Kamptee area on Mumbai-
Calcutta railway track at Nagpur. There is a railway crossing passing below
the Fly Over, which is being used for commuting on both the sides of the
said Fly Over. The said Railway crossing is manually operated by four
persons in shifts engaged by the Railways. After construction of the said
Fly Over, the Railways took a stand that the said Railway crossing manually
operated is no more needed and therefore they decided to close the same
for ever. It is in this background, the present writ petition appears to have
been filed.
3. During the course of hearing our attention was invited to the
Railway crossing and the map at page 41 of the writ petition, so also
various photographs at page 109. The map and the photographs show that
the Fly Over that was constructed does not solve any purpose for the
commuters who have been commuting from the said railway crossing as
the Fly Over commences right from Kamal Talkies and ends at Mehdibagh
Road, Itwari. Thus the said railway crossing passing underneath at some
portion of the Fly Over cannot be said to be a substitute for the commuters
crossing the said railway crossing and the commuters cannot be expected
to travel a long distance to either side of the Fly Over.
4. Mr.Agrawal, learned counsel for the Railways, further
pointed out to us construction of a sub-way and stair case from the
photographs. Having seen the same on page 38, we are fully satisfied that
the sub-way or stair case does not serve any purpose and the traffic of
commuters from the railway crossing which has been in vogue for so many
years cannot be discontinued by allowing the Railways to close down the
railway crossing at Mehadibagh, Itwari. A proposal was made by the
concerned DCP of the concerned department for providing a convenient
way ramp by the railways as an alternative to the railway crossing or a
railway underground bridge with sufficient height which would enable
passage of Fire Brigade and other vehicles through the same. Mr. Agrawal
Advocate, however, opposed the proposal and argued that since the Fly
Over was constructed there is no need to construct the same and the
railways are not agreeable to the proposal of ramp or railway underground
bridge, as suggested by the State Government. As found earlier, we have
carefully considered the matter and we found from the photographs and
other evidence brought on record by way of affidavit that the railways
cannot be allowed to close down the railway crossing, which has been in
existence since many years and the people have been commuting
particularly therefrom because even now there is no other alternate way,
which would substitute the said railway crossing.
5. The other aspect that was agitated in the present writ petition
was regarding removal of encroachments. This Court passed various
interim orders and monitored the activity of removal of encroachment etc.
and by now it appears that the encroachment in respect of which
complaints were made, have been removed. We, therefore, confirm all the
interim orders made by us in this writ petition while disposing of the writ
petition. Hence, we make the following order.
6.
Writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of
prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
