Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Dinesh Kumar Patidar vs Union Of India ... on 25 January, 2023
Bench: Sandeep Mehta, Yogendra Kumar Purohit
[2023/RJJD/002440] (1 of 4) [CW-1118/2023]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1118/2023
1. Dinesh Kumar Patidar S/o Shri Madanlal Patidar, Aged
About 43 Years, R/o Opposite R.s.e.b., Ward No. 20,
Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
2. Devi Lal Gurjar S/o Shri Bheru Lal Gurjar, Aged About 39
Years, R/o Nimbaheda Road, Chhoti Sadri, Tehsil Chhoti
Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
3. Uma Shankar Mali S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Mali, Aged
About 50 Years, R/o 22 Ward No. 11, Near Seth Ji
Building, Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
4. Mayank Sharma S/o Shri Gopal Sharma, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Joshi Mohalla, Ward No. 08, Chhoti Sadri,
District Pratapgarh.
5. Lalit Patidar S/o Shri Suraj Mal Patidar, Aged About 37
Years, R/o Patidar Mohalla, Ward No. 12, Chhoti Sadri,
District Pratapgarh.
6. Kapil Patidar S/o Shri Gopal Patidar, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 20, Opposite Electricity Office, Chhoti Sadri,
District Pratapgarh.
7. Gopal Lal Patidar S/o Shri Vasudev Patidar, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Near Narsingh Temple, Chhoti Sadri, Ward No.
12, Chhoti Sadri, District Pratapgarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Railway, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Chief Engineer, North West Railway, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Chief Engineer, North-West Railway, Udaipur.
4. The Collector, District Pratapgarh.
5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Chhoti Sadri, District
Pratapgarh.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Arora
For Respondent(s) : -
[2023/RJJD/002440] (2 of 4) [CW-1118/2023]
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Order
25/01/2023
The petitioners have filed the instant writ petition
styling the same to be in the nature of Public Interest Litigation for
questioning the alignment of the railway track to be laid through
the Chhoti Sadari town. Prayer is made by the petitioners to
direct the respondents to realign the proposed railway track and to
construct it in a straight line passing outside the populated areas
of Chhoti Sadari town.
Learned counsel Shri Rakesh Arora, representing the
petitioners, vehemently and fervently contended that the
proposed railway line, which is sought to be laid from inside the
Chhoti Sadari town would be having a significant curve and the
length thereof would be extended by 2 kms. as compared to the
alignment suggested by the petitioners, which would be in an
absolutely straight line. He, thus, urged that appropriate
directions be issued to the respondents to lay down the railway
line on the path suggested by the petitioners after extensive
research. In support of his contentions, Shri Arora placed reliance
on the order dated 09.05.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of In Re : T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Vs.
Union of India & Ors. [Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202/1995].
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the
submissions advanced at bar and have gone through the material
placed on record.
Ex facie, we are of the firm view that the prayer made
in this writ petition tantamounts to direct interference in the policy
[2023/RJJD/002440] (3 of 4) [CW-1118/2023]
decision of the respondent Ministry of Railways and as such, this
court while exercising the extraordinary writ jurisdiction would be
loathe to exercise powers in this regard. This proposition of law is
well-established by a catena of judgments. Reference in this
regard may be had to the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this court in the case of Mahesh Chandra Purohit Vs.
Container Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. [AIR 2002 Raj
5], wherein the Division Bench has held has below :-
"10. Thus, it is well settled that when a decision is
taken by the Government after due consideration and
full application of mind, the Court is not to sit in appeal
over such decision. The High Court in exercise of
powers under Article 226 of the Constitution will not
transgress into the field of policy decisions. Whether to
have an infrastructure project or not, or what is the
type of project to be undertaken or what should be its
location and how it has to be execute, are part of policy
making process and the Courts are inequipped to
adjudicate on policy decisions so undertaken. Even in
case of violation of fundamental rights, the challenge to
such policy decisions must be before execution of the
project. With respect to the environmental problem, its
impact should be seen in relation to the project as a
whole."
In the case of Union of India Vs. Bajrang Lal
Sharma [D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.192/1991
decided on 06.08.1991], this court accepted the special appeal
filed by the Railways and reversed the order passed by the learned
Single Bench directing re-alignment of the proposed broad-gauge
line passing through Bikaner.
[2023/RJJD/002440] (4 of 4) [CW-1118/2023]
The judgment in the case of In Re : T.N.
Godavarman Thirumulpad (Supra), on which Shri Arora
heavily relied, is clearly distinguishable because the facts under
consideration in the said case pertained to doubling of railway line
through wild life sanctuary/protected forest reserve. Thus, the
said judgment/order is of no avail to the petitioners.
Having considered the submissions advanced at bar
and after going through the material available on record, we are of
the firm opinion that this court is not an expert body, which can
delve into feasibility/viability or to decide the alignment of railway
line so as to cause interference in the decision taken by the
appropriate authority.
As a consequence, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed as being devoid of merit.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (SANDEEP MEHTA),J
48-Pramod/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
