Dr. P. Nalla Thamby Thera Vs. Union of
India & Ors [1983] INSC 167 (28 October 1983)
MISRA RANGNATH MISRA RANGNATH BHAGWATI, P.N. SEN,
AMARENDRA NATH (J)
CITATION: 1984 AIR 74 1984 SCR (1) 709 1983
SCC (4) 598 1983 SCALE (2)686
CITATOR INFO :
RF 1986 SC 874 (31) RF 1986 SC1999 (8) RF
1987 SC 990 (12) E 1990 SC1851 (36)
ACT:
Public Interest Litigation-Petitioner a
commuter of the Indian Railways praying for a writ of Mandamus under Article 32
of the Constitution for implementation of the several Committee Reports,
appointing a fact finding Commission to inquire and report about the railways
accidents and for directions to comply with every provision of the Railway Act
so as not to violate Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution- Courts cannot give
any directions to the Union of India- Costs of Public Interest Litigation,
payment of.
HEADNOTE:
Disposing off the petition, making certain
observations and expressing its inability to issue any directions, except
awarding costs, the Court.
HELD: 1. Giving directions in a matter like
this, where availability of resources has a material bearing, policy regarding
priorities is involved, expertise is very much in issue is not prudent to issue
any directions. Ordinarily the powers of the court to deal with a matter such
as this, which prima facie appears to be wholly within the domain of the
Executive must be examined. [723 H, 724 A] The Govt. have limitations, both of
resources and capacity. Yet, it is hoped that the Government and the
Administration would rise to the necessity of the occasion and take it as a
challenge to improve this great public utility (Railways) in an effective way
and with an adequate sense of urgency. If, necessary, it shall set up a high
powered body to quickly handle the many faced problems standing in the way.
[723 G-H]
2. As the present case is a public interest
litigation, the petitioner is entitled to consolidated costs of Rs. 5,000
recoverable from the Railway Ministry of the Union Government. [724 F-G]
3. There is hardly any scope to doubt that
the guarantees provided in Part III of the Constitution are Fundamental and it
is the paramount obligation of the State to ensure availability of situations,
circumstances, and environments in which every citizen can effectively exercise
and enjoy these rights. The right to life has recently been held by the Supreme
Court to connote not merely animal existence but to have a much wider
meaning-to include the finer graces of human civilization. If these rights of
the citizens are to be ensured, 710 it is undoubtedly the obligation of the
Union of India and its instrumentalities to improve the established means of
communication in this country. [722 E-G] 3.2. The Railways are a public
utility-service run on monopoly basis. Since it is a public utility, there is
no justification to run it merely as a commercial venture with a view to making
profits. It is not known if a monopoly based public utility should ever be a
commercial venture geared to supply the general revenue of the State but there is
no doubt that the common man's mode of transport closely connected with the
free play of his fundamental right should not be. [722 H, 723 A] 3.3. The Union
Government should be free to collect the entire operational cost which would
include the interest on the capital outlay out of the national exchequer. Small
marginal profits cannot be ruled out. The massive operation will require a
margin of adjustment and, therefore, marginal profits should be admissible.
[723 B-C] 3.4. On the other hand, it is of paramount importance that the
services should be prompt. The quality of the service should improve. Travel
comforts, facilities in running trains and quality of accommodation and
availability thereof should be ensured. The Administration should remain always
alive to the position that every bonafide passenger is a guest of the service.
Ticketless travelling has to be totally wiped out. It is this class of
passengers which is a menace to the system without any payment, these law
breakers disturb the administration and genuine passengers. Stringent laws
should be made and strictly enforced to free the Railways from this deep rooted
evil Security both of the travelling public as also to the travelling citizens
must be provided and this means that accidents have to be avoided, attack on
the persons of the passengers and prying on their property has to stop.
Scientific improvements made in other countries and suitable to the system in
our country must be briskly adopted. The obligations cast by the Railways Act
and the Rules under it must be complied with. [723 C-F] 3.5. At the same time,
no purpose is served by placing the blame at the doors of the Government of the
day. All of us should have realism and condour Independence has been secured at
great cost and sacrifice. It is every citizen's obligation to maintain it and
create an environment in which its fruits can be harvested and shared. [719
D-E]
3.6 Freedom brings responsibility. There can
be no rights without responsibilities. In our country unfortunately individual
rights have received disproportionate emphasis without proper stress on
corresponding social obligations and responsibilities. In a welfare State like
ours the citizen is forever encountering public officials at various levels,
regulators and dispensers of social services and managers of State operated
enterprises. It is of utmost importance that the encounters are as just and as
free from arbitrariness as are the familiar encounters of the rights. What is,
therefore, of paramount importance is that every citizen must get involved in
the determined march to resurrect the society and subordinate his will and
passion to the primordial necessity of order in 711 social life. If is only in
a country of that order that the common man will have his voice heard. The
dream can become a reality if every citizen becomes aware of his duty and
before asking for enforcement of his right, volunteers to perform his
obligation. [719 E-F, 720 B-C, D, 724 E]
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition No. 8911
of 1981.
(Under article 32 of the Constitution of
India) Petitioner in Person K.G. Bhagat, Addl. Sol. Gen., N.C. Talukdar and
R.N. Poddar for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RANGANATH MISRA, J. The petitioner in this petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution is a resident of Sultanbattery area in the State of Kerala and
describing himself as a commuter of the Indian Railways he has alleged
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 and claims
reliefs of mandamus to the Union of India for implementing the reports of the
Kunzru, Wanchoo and Sikri Committees, appointing a fact finding Commission to
inquire and report about the numerous train accidents from 1970 onwards and for
several other directions to the Union Government and the instrumentalities
connected with the administration of the Railways. As the petition which the
petitioner, an allopathic doctor by profession, had himself drafted and filed
was unduly long and repetitive, written submission with the assistance of
counsel crystalising the issues for determination by the Court was filed, leave
to amend the writ petition was granted and notice thereon was issued on August
2, 1982. The petitioner alleged, inter alia, that the Railways in this country
are owned by the Central Government and on account of failure to fulfil the
constitutional, statutory and commercial obligations by the Railways, adequate
safety protection to the passengers and their properties is not available. The
Indian Railways Act, 1890 ('Act' for short) has prescribed several safety
measures; based upon experience, the Railway Board through which apex body the
administration is run and controlled has also prescribed rules and issued
instructions which are not being properly implemented. The Union Government had
appointed three high powered Committees in the post- independence period,
namely, the Kunzru, Wanchoo and Sikri Committees to investigate into the 712
affairs of the Railways with particular reference to accidents and though
detailed and useful recommendations have been made by these committees, there
has been no adequate implementation thereof. Particular reference has been made
to the unmanned level crossings, increasing human error as a contributing
factor to accidents, non-allocation of adequate funds for improvements,
improper utilisation of the assets and facilities, inefficiency in the
administration at different levels, prevalence and increase of indiscipline,
frequency of thefts, robberies and murders of passengers, ineffective checking
and supervisory system, want of replacement of equipment and repairs to bridges
as also non-provision of adequate facilities to passengers.
The Joint Director (Safety) has filed a
counter affidavit in answer to the Rule on behalf of the respondents. It has
been averred that the recommendations of the Accidents Enquiry Committees were
examined and implemented within the limits of financial and material resources.
So far as manned level crossings are concerned there were as many as 14471 of
them as on March 1, 1982;
unmanned level crossings were provided mostly
on roads where the volume of road and train traffic was low. It has been
further pleaded that periodic review is undertaken about manning of unmanned
level crossings and opening of new level crossings in consultation with
appropriate State Governments. Initially it used to be the obligation of the
respective State Governments to provide for such level crossings at their cost
in view of the accepted position that at a level crossing the right of way is
of the train in preference to the traffic on the road. As that arrangement was
not working well, with effect from April 1, 1966, a Railway Safety Work Fund
has been set up and expenses are being met out of it. From 1978 potentially
hazardous unmanned level crossings with a volume of traffic of more than 6000
train vehicle units or poor approach visibility are being manned in a phased
manner at the cost of the Railways and control at the gate is also being
improved. As on June 1, 1982, there were as many as 27233 unmanned level
crossings on the Railways and if all of them are to be manned, a capital
expenditure of 330 crore rupees would be necessary and similarly an annual
recurring expenditure of Rs.44 crores will have to be met. As a measure of
safety, whistle boards have been fixed near unmanned level crossings requiring
the engine driver to whistle while approaching such level crossings. Most of
the States have framed rules under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, making it
obligatory for 713 drivers of motor vehicles to stop short of unmanned level
crossings, observe and then proceed. Speed breakers are usually provided on the
road approaches to all unmanned level crossings. With a view to educating the
users of the roads wide publicity is given through newspapers, cinema slides,
commercial broadcasting and the television about the hazards involved while
negotiating unmanned level crossings.
It has been alleged that unmanned level
crossings are gradually being replaced by manned ones and improved technical
gadgets are being provided for efficient operation. Relying on the Sikri
Committee Report of 1978, it has been submitted that the State Governments
appeared to be aware of their responsibilities in this matter and about 2/3 of
the funds of the Safety Works had been utilised by March 31, 1982. While
admitting that in the initial period utilisation of funds was poor and
finalisation of schemes for over-bridges and under-bridges was slow, the
situation is claimed to have improved and in 1982-83 as many as 15 works in
different States involving an expenditure of Rs.22 crores have been cleared.
Dealing with manpower, the counter-affidavit
asserts that direct recruits are given proper training required for the
respective posts and only qualified people are entrusted with assignments.
Pragmatic and scientific classification of various posts has been made and
suitable care is being taken in this regard. So far as the locomotive drivers
are concerned, strict vision standards have been laid down and general physical
fitness is a prescribed pre-requisite.
Drivers are subjected to periodical medical
examination until the age of 45 at intervals of three years and thereafter
until superannuation every year.
Every accident, it has been averred, is
thoroughly enquired into to fix the responsibility for it and to visit the
delinquent with proper punishment. Ordinarily such enquiries are conducted by
the administrative machinery.
Accidents involving loss of human life and
properties estimated over one lakh are earmarked for enquiry by Commissioners
of Railway Safety who as authorities appointed under s. 4 of the Act function
independently of the Railway Administration and are under the administrative
control of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Enquiries by the Railway officials
are stipulated to commence within three days of the accident and are intended
to be over within one week of their commencement, while enquiries by
Commissioners of Railway Safety are also required to start within three days
and official reports are required to be made within 60 days 714 of the
accident. Adequate disciplinary control is exercised and on the findings of the
enquiries, the delinquent officials are visited with necessary punishment.
Adverting to robberies and dacoities in the
running trains, it has been pointed out that they are problems of law and
order, maintenance of which is an obligation of the State Governments.
Government Railway Police, Civil Police and plain clothed CID officers operate
for the purpose of reducing crime and for detection. A moiety share of the cost
of GRP is borne by the Railway administration. Added to this the Railway
Protection Force is maintained to protect consignments booked for transport as also
Railway property.
The overall strength of the GRP stands at
6,740. They escort passenger trains running at night by deploying armed guards,
provide beat patrolling at stations and waiting halls, keep surveillance over
criminals and post pickets at vulnerable points.
With reference to improvements in the rolling
stock and required gadgets, it has been stated that the Sixth Plan for the
Railways has been termed as 'Rehabilitation Plan'.
Overaged gadgets are intended to be withdrawn
subject to availability of resources and manufacturing capacity within the
country. The Planning Commission which is an expert body is responsible for
fixing of the priorities. It has again been pleaded that there are nearly
120000 bridges on the Railways out of which 195 are important bridges and
nearly 9400 are major bridges. It is said that every bridge is annually
inspected and continuous record is maintained in regard to every bridge in the
bridge register. On an average 400 to 600 bridges are annually built. Speed restriction
is imposed on old and weak bridges and at present there are 202 such bridges.
Figures of six years between 1977 and 1983 of the outlay on bridges have been
provided which indicate substantial sums having been set apart for the
rebuilding of bridges. It is said that the total life of 80 years for steel
work and 100 years for masonry part of the bridges stipulated in the Railway
Code is for the purpose of provision in the Depreciation Reserve Fund. The
codal life does not have any direct relevance with the condition of a bridge
and there is no necessity of rebuilding a bridge when its codal life is over.
There has been no instance where the work of bridge rebuilding has been
postponed for lack of funds and no accident has occurred owing to structural failure
of any bridge or girders.
715 Colour light signalling which is an
improved device less dependent on direct visibility and where signal is pre-
warned by a signal in the rear, is being provided on the trunk and main routes
on a graduated scale. Automatic warning system has been introduced in Gaya,
Mughalsarai and Howrah-Burdwan chord line sections on the Eastern Railway.
Due to theft of aluminium track magnets the
system has been found not very satisfactory. Experiments are being made for
evolving a design which would not be prone to theft.
The petitioner has filed a rejoinder pointing
out that the counter-affidavit clearly indicated a negative approach on the
part of the respondents to the entire matter.
According to the petitioner assistance of 500
crores of rupees was to come during the year ending March 31, 1983 and from out
of such funds, pressing improvements like manning the unmanned level crossings
could be undertaken. Reliance has been placed on the observations of Sikri
Committee that accidents at unmanned level crossings take a heavy toll of human
lives every year. The petitioner has pleaded for abolition of overtime
employment of safety category staff.
He has pointed out that though he asked for
directions for providing appropriate monitoring of speed of trains particularly
at accident prone spots in the track, no reply has been given thereto in the
counter-affidavit. The strength of the GRP has been said to be totally
inadequate keeping in view the size of the Railways and volume of the passenger
traffic it handles. The petitioner has denied the assertion in the
counter-affidavit that no accident has taken place on account for defective
bridges and has pointed out that the accident of June 6, 1981 on a river bridge
in the Bihar State was attributable to this factor only. The petitioner has
pleaded again for the introduction of the automatic warning system and has
referred to a publication of the Directorate of Safety, Railway Board,
entitled, "A Review of Accidents on Indian Railways 1979-80", where
the introduction of automatic warning system has been suggested to be
introduced to avoid accidents. He has also pleaded for enhancing the minimum
compensation in the event of loss of life of a passenger arising out of
accidents to a sum of Rs. 75,000 by appropriate amendment of s. 82A (2) of the
Act.
The petitioner has found fault with the
counter-affidavit for being silent in regard to his plea for the appointment of
Railway Inspectors to make periodical inspection of carriages, engines, tracks,
etc.
716 The lis before us is not of the ordinary
type where there are two contending parties, a claim is raised by one and
denied by the other, issues are struck, evidence is led and the findings
follow. Though the petitioner is commuter of trains run by the Indian Railways,
the writ petition is essentially in the nature of public interest litigation
and the petitioner has attempted to voice the grievances of the community
availing the services of the Indian Railways. In view of the recent pronouncements
of this Court no objection has been raised in the counter-affidavit and we have
not been called upon to adjudge the locus standi of the petitioner to maintain
an action like this.
Railways came to India in 1853 and the first
track to be laid was of a small length connecting the then city of Bombay with
a suburb. Through the decades that followed the expansion was usually for
considerations of trade and commerce, troop movement and administrative
convenience.
More of expansion came gradually connecting almost
the entire country through a well woven net work of Railways and by the time
the country became independent most of the Railways had been nationalised and
Railways constituted the most important commercial activity of the Government
of India. As early as 1850-and three years before the opening of the first
Railway track, Lord Dalhousie, the then Governor General of India had said in
his minutes:
"I trust they (the East India Company
and the Government of India) will ever avoid the error of viewing Railways as
private undertakings and will regard them as national works, over which the
Government may justly exercise and is called upon to exercise stringent and
salutary control This control should not be an arbitrary right of interference
but a regulated authority defined and declared by law which is not to be
needlessly or vexatiously exacted but which, in my humble judgment, is
necessary at once for the interests of the State and for the protection of the
public." (Minutes of Lord Dalhousie, July 4, 1850).
This regard for the public interest during
the pre- independence period was often subject to the limitations imposed by
the British Capital and Management and by British Commercial and economic
interests until the Railways were nationalised between 1925 and 1944.
717 At any rate, by 1947 when the foreign
domination ended, the Railways had emerged as the main viable and stable means
of transport and were providing the lifeline and link throughout the length and
breadth of the country. By 1955 the total length of all Indian Railways was
34705 miles and the capital sunk was more than 900 crore rupees.
The rise in the importance of the Railways in
the national sphere has been gradual. With the expansion of the Railways a high
powered body known as the Railway Board has come to be placed at the apex of
control and with the new set up following independence a Minister remained
incharge to administer the affairs of the Railways through the Board.
As early as 1924 by a resolution known as the
Convention Resolution of the Legislative Assembly the Railway budget had been
separated from the general budget and this historical practice has been
continued till today.
Today the Railways provide the most effective
means of transport both for passengers also for the goods traffic.
The Railways have a great impact in holding
this great country together and in promoting and running its economy.
Their contribution to the community is
manifold-some seen and others not apparently visible. Briefly stated, it is a
big force, the largest employer in the country and a monopoly transport agency.
Before we come to deal with the specific
aspects raised in the writ petition and countered by the respondents certain
general observations need be made. The Indian Railways are a socialised public
utility undertaking. There is at present a general agreement among writers of
repute that the price policy of such a public Corporation should neither make a
loss nor a profit after meeting all capital charges and this is expressed by
covering all costs or breaking even; and secondly, the price it charges for the
services should correspond to relative costs. Keeping the history of the growth
of the Railways and their functioning in view, the commendable view to accept
may be that the rates and fares should cover the total cost of service which
would be equal to operational expenses, interest on investment, depreciation
and payment of public obligations, if any. We need not, however, express any
opinion about it.
After independence, keeping to the ideologies
that had been nurtured during the period of struggle an attempt has been made
718 for the simplification of the classes in the Railways.
Instead of first class, second class, inter
class and third class, two classes only have been maintained, namely, the first
class and the second class besides the air-conditioned class. In developed
countries usually the classification is higher and lower; sleeping or sitting
and the like. In India 90% of the earnings in respect of passenger traffic come
from the lower class commuters.
Also after independence expansion projects
have been undertaken and many areas which have hitherto remained unlinked and
unconnected have been joined up as part of the national lifeline. Pandit
Jawahar Lal Nehru, first Prime Minister of India had once said:
"Our final aim can only be a classless
society with equal economic justice and opportunity to all, a society organised
on a planned basis for the raising of mankind to higher material and cultural
level.....
Everything that comes in the way will have to
be removed; gently if possible, forcibly, if necessary.
And there seems to be little doubt that
coercion will often be necessary." This approach on principle does not
appear to have been abandoned. It is proper that this is worked out also in the
Railways and, as quickly as possible, classification conforming to this is
introduced. It is manifest that the Indian Constitution has definitely rejected
the authoritarian form of Government and directed the State to bring about an
egalitarian social order through the rule of law. In keeping with this mandate
several guiding policies are being indicated but implementation is not being
made.
What Tolstoy remarked can relevantly be
quoted as apt:
"The abolition of slavery has gone on
for a very long time. Rome abolished slavery; America abolished it and we did,
but only the words were abolished, not the thing." The implementing
machinery has become non-functional.
This is so not only in our country. Wilfred
Jenks in his address in April 1972 to the International Law Organisation had
summed up the position thus:
719 "Throughout the world there is an
acute crisis of confidence in integrity and fairness. This crisis of confidence
lies at the heart of political instability, economic disorder, industrial
disturbance, racial and religious conflict, cultural anarchy, youth unrest and
continuous international tension. Disruptive in all these fields, it paralyses
action to remove its causes." Burger, C.J. of the United States has said:
"We are approaching the status of an
imperfect society where capability of maintaining elementary security in the
streets, in the schools and for the homes of our people is in doubt. At every
stage of the criminal process, the system cries out for change." What has
been extracted above appropriately summarises the current situation all the
world over. No purpose is served by placing the blame at the doors of the
Government of the day. We must have realism and candour. Independence has been
secured at great cost and sacrifice. It is our obligation to maintain it and
create an environment in which its fruits can be harvested and shared.
Freedom brings responsibility. There can be
no rights without responsibilities. In our country, unfortunately individual
rights seem to have received disproportionate emphasis without proper stress on
corresponding social obligations and responsibilities. In a welfare State like
ours the citizen is forever encountering public officials at various levels,
regulators and dispensers of social services and managers of State operated
enterprises. It is of the utmost importance that the encounters are as just and
as free from arbitrariness as are the familiar encounters of the rights.
Edmund Burke spoke thus:
"All persons possessing a portion of
power ought to be strongly and awfully impressed with an idea that they act in
trust, and they are to account for their conduct, in that trust to the one
great master, author and founder of society." 720 Equally apt are the
observations of Lord Denning in his address to the National Conference of the
Law Society in 1980:
"When you look upon these scientific
achievements, then look back for a moment on our world today, what do you see,
Crime, increasing everywhere; sins, disgraceful sins, corroding corruption,
increasing everywhere. When we see this, surely we recall the words of 2000
years ago-what doth it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his
own soul." What is, therefore, of paramount importance is that every
citizen must get involved in the determined march to resurrect the society and
subordinate his will and passion to the primordial necessity of order in social
life.
Abraham Lincoln once told his Congress:
"This country, with its institutions,
belongs to the people who inhabit it." Such also is the position in our
country. Everyone in the country must realise this and be told the great truth
said by Lord Wright:
"The safeguard of British liberty is in
the good sense of the people." Liver sidge v. Anderson (1942) A.C. 206 It
is useful to conclude our general observations by quoting from Robert
Ingersoll:
"A Government founded on anything except
liberty and justice cannot stand. All the wrecks on either side of the stream
of time, all the wrecks of the great cities and all the nations that have
passed away-all are a warning that no nation founded upon injustice can stand.
From the sand enshrouded Egypt, from the marble wilderness of Athens, and from
every fallen crumbling stone of the once mighty Rome, comes a wail-as it were-
the cry that no nation founded on injustice can permanently stand." 721
Having thus cleared the way by indicating the approach, ordinarily the powers
of the Court to deal with a matter such as this which prima facie appears to be
wholly within the domain of the Executive, should have been examined. Lord
Simond in Shaw v. Director, Public Prosecution, has observed:
"I entertain no doubt there remains in
the Courts of Law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental
purpose of the law, to conserve not only the safety and order, but also the
moral welfare of the State and that it is their duty to guard against attacks
which may be more insiduous because they are novel and unprepared for."
Mathew, J. in Murlidhar Aggarwal v. State of U.P., indicated:
"Public policy does not remain static in
any given community. It may vary from generation to generation and even in the
same generation. Public policy would be almost useless if it were to remain in
fixed moulds for all time.
If it is variable, if it depends on the
welfare of the community at any given time, how are the courts to ascertain it
! The Judges are more to be trusted as interpreters of the law than as
expounders of public policy. However, there is no alternative under our system
but to vest this power with Judges. The difficulty of discovering what public
policy is at any given moment certainly does not absolve the Judges from the
duty of doing so. In conducting an enquiry, as already stated, Judges are not
hidebound by precedent.
The Judges must look beyond the narrow field
of past precedents, though this still leaves open the question in which
direction they must cast their gaze." The learned Judge then quoted with
approval the famous statement of Cardozo (The Nature of Judicial Process):
722 "No doubt there is no assurance that
Judges will interpret the mores of their day more wisely and truly than other
men. But this is beside the point. The point is rather that this power must be
lodged somewhere and under our Constitution and laws, it has been lodged in the
Judges and if they have to fulfill their function as Judges, it would hardly be
lodged elsewhere." The petitioner has grounded his petition on Articles 19
and 21 of the Constitution. Article 19, inter alia, guarantees freedom of movement
throughout the territory of India and to practice any profession, to carry on
any occupation, trade or business, and Article 21 guarantees that no person
shall be deprived of his life and personal liberty except according to
procedure prescribed by law. The petitioner has maintained that he, may every
citizen of this country for the matter of that, is entitled to demand that the
State shall provide adequate facilities and create and maintain an environment
in which the right to move freely and carry on any business or profession would
both be practicable and feasible. Since the State maintains the Railways which
provide the link and make working out of both these rights possible, it is
contended, such facilities should be in good shape, adequate, prompt,
efficient, economic and within the reach of the common man, free from danger or
apprehension of life. Similarly, this service must operate efficiently for
transport of goods to facilitate business and practice of profession and trade
by citizens.
There is hardly any scope to doubt that the
guarantees provided in Part III of the Constitution are fundamental and it is
the paramount obligation of the State to ensure availability of situations,
circumstances and environments in which every citizen can effectively exercise
and enjoy those rights. The right to life has recently been held by this Court
to connote not merely animal existence but to have a much wider meaning-to
include the finer graces of human civilization. If these rights of the citizens
are to be ensured, it is undoubtedly the obligation of the Union of India and
its instrumentalities to improve the established means of communication in this
country. Here again, however, we need not express any opinion as we do not
propose to give any directions to the opposite parties. No dispute regarding
maintainability having been raised, that question also did not arise for
consideration.
We have said earlier that the Railways are a
public utility service run on monopoly basis. Since it is a public utility,
there is 723 no justification to run it merely as a commercial venture with a
view to making profits. We do not know-at any rate it does not fall for
consideration here-if a monopoly based public utility should ever be a
commercial venture geared to support the general revenue of the State but there
is not an iota of hesitation in us to say that the common man's mode of
transport closely connected with the free play of this fundamental right should
not be. We agree that the Union Government should be free to collect the entire
operational cost which would include the interest on the capital outlay out of
the national exchequer. Small marginal profits cannot be ruled out. The massive
operation will require a margin of adjustment and, therefore, marginal profits
should be admissible.
It is of paramount importance that the
services should be prompt, efficient and dignified. The quality of the service
should improve. Travel comforts should be ensured.
Facilities in running trains should be
ensured. Quality of accommodation and availability thereof should be ensured.
The administration should remain always alive
to the position that every bona fide passenger is a guest of the service.
Ticketless travelling has to be totally wiped out.
We are of the view that it is this class of
passengers which is a menace to the system. Without any payment these law
breakers disturb the administration and genuine passengers.
Stringent laws should be made and strictly
enforced to free the Railways from this deep rooted evil. Security both to the
travelling public as also to the non-travelling citizens must be provided and
this means that accidents have to be avoided, attack on the persons of the
passengers and prying on their property has to stop. Scientific improvements
made in other countries and suitable to the system in our country must be
briskly adopted. The obligations cast by the Railways Act and the Rules under
it must be complied with.
It is relevant to point out here that in the
counter- affidavit the respondents have denied some of the assertions of the
petitioner, yet no dispute has been generally raised to the stand taken in the
writ petition. We are alive to the fact that Government have limitations, both
of resources and capacity, yet we hope that the Government and the
Administration would rise to the necessity of the occasion and take it as a
challenge to improve this great public utility in an effective way and with an
adequate sense of urgency. If necessary, it shall set up a high powered body to
quickly handle the many faced problems standing in the way. Giving directions
in a matter like this where availability of resources has a material bearing,
policy regarding 724 priorities is involved, expertise is very much in issue,
is not prudent and we do not, therefore, propose to issue directions. We,
however, do hope and believe that early steps shall be taken to implement in a
phased manner the improvements referred to in the counter-affidavit and in our
decision.
We think it proper to conclude our decision
by remembering the famous saying of Henry Peter Broughan with certain
adaptations:
"It was the boast of Augustus that he
found Rome of bricks and left it of marble. But how noble will be the boast of
the citizens of free India of today when they shall have it to say that they
found law dear and left it cheaper; found it a sealed book and left it a living
letter; found it the patrimony of the rich and left it the inheritance of the
poor; found it the two edged sword of craft and oppression and left it the staff
of honesty and the shield of innocence." It is only in a country of that
order that the common man will have his voice heard.
The dream can become a reality if every
citizen becomes aware of his duty and before asking for enforcement of his
right, volunteers to perform his obligation.
And before we part, we must record our
appreciation of the performance of the petitioner. He has taken great pains to
highlight his stand-collected a lot of relevant material and argued his case
quite well-a doctor by profession though. As this was a public interest
litigation, we direct that he shall be entitled to consolidated cost of Rs.
5,000 recoverable from the Railway Ministry of the Union Government unless paid
within two months hence.
S R.
Back
