Judgment :-

(PER R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.)

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent, a practicing lawyer, file a public interest litigation in the year 2009 in the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) praying for issue of the following directions to the Railway administration (Western Railway, West Central Railway and North Central Railway):

(i) the additional berths from Three Tier Sleeper & AC Class Coaches in all trains;

(ii) to complete the second track between Gwalior and Indore; and submit a progress report to court in respect of the work done in the last 25 years.

(iii) to reschedule the train timings of Bhind-Indore Intercity Express (Train No.9319/9320) and Gwalior-Indore Express (Train No.1125/1126 taking into account various factors and not to stop the train at Parihar and Laxmibai Nagar;

(iv) to fill all vacant posts of coolies in all stations to avoid discomfort to passengers;

(v) to introduce addition 3 tier sleeper coaches in all trains between Gwalior and Indore.

(vi) to introduce additional coaches (AC-I & AC-III) in Dehradun Express, additional coaches (AC-I and AC-II tier) in Bhind-Indore Intercity Express and Gwalior-Indore Expresses (Train No.9318, 9320, 1125 & 1126);

(vii) to extend train route to Ujjain-Dehradun Express (Train No.4309 and 4310) upto Indore;

(viii) to re-schedule the timings of Intercity Express and Dehradun Express to enable more passengers can use them and;

(ix) to extend the route of Shuttle Express (Gwalior-Guna-Gwalior) and Indore-Maksi-Indore upto Indore and Gwalior respectively during day time.

3. The High Court passed a series of interim orders in the said case, in compliance of which, Railways made changes in the timings of several trains. They also added AC-II coaches, AC-I coaches, composite (AC-III cum AC-II) coaches to several trains. In some cases, the Railway Administration informed the Court that the demand for further trains/coaches will not be feasible or could not be met, either due to technical reasons or lack of full capacity utilization in regard to existing trains/coaches. They also pointed out that certain seasonal increase in passenger traffic like summer vacations, cannot be a ground for permanent or throughout the year addition of new trains or addition of new coaches.

4. But the High Court was not satisfied. It got into details of railway administration and train schedule management, which were totally alien to judicial review, and beyond judicially manageable standards. We extract below a typical interim order passed on 17-12-2009:

“It is reported to us that the Intercity Express though has some berths to accommodate the passengers who propose to travel in II AC but the bogie is made in two parts half of its is reserved for II AC while the other half is being utilized by the passengers traveling in III AC. Learned counsel for the respondents pray for time to seek instructions in the matter. Let the General Manager (Traffic), Railways file his personal affidavit in the matter as to why such a bogie has been provided and what problem would be faced by the Railway Administration if instead of half bogie II AC a full bogie II AC is provide.”

5. By the impugned interim order dated 5-7-2010, the High Court directed the Railways to provide a Full AC-II coach in the Intercity Express. The High Court further directed the Railways to consider and introduce AC-I coach in the Intercity Express. While issuing the said direction the High Court observed: “Needless to say the Benches of this prestigious High Court are smoothly functioning at both the cities viz. Gwalior and Indore” thereby implying that the AC-I coach was necessary in the Intercity Express because the High Court has Benches at Gwalior and Indore. The High Court also directed the impleadment of Army Regiments and Border Security Forces to the PIL. It further directed the learned counsel for the Union of India to submit in writing how many officers of Central Government, Armed Forces and Border Security Forces are re