1. Writ petition seeking direction to convert unmanned railway crossings into manned level-crossings. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2010 Supreme(SC) 1453
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.H. KAPADIA, CJI., K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.
Consumer Education and Research Centre – Petitioner
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
W.P. (C) No. 162 of 2001
Decided On : 13-09-2010
The Court's role ends once an authority frames and implements detailed guidelines to address the grievance, provided there is no evidence of those guidelines being flouted. Specific failures in implementation may be challenged before the concerned High Court.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 32 - Conversion of unmanned railway crossing gates into manned level-crossings - Guidelines framed by the authority to provide for manned level-crossings - Where guidelines are issued and implementation steps are indicated, and no instance of flouting guidelines is brought to notice, the role of the Court ends. (Para 2)
(B) Implementation of Guidelines - Where guidelines are flouted in implementation within a specific State, the petitioner is at liberty to move the concerned High Court. (Para 2)
Facts of the case:
A writ petition was filed seeking directions for the immediate conversion of unmanned railway crossing gates into manned level-crossings and the formulation of an Action Plan for the same. Since the filing of the petition, the concerned authority issued detailed guidelines and provided a counter-affidavit indicating the steps taken to establish manned level-crossings.
Findings of Court:
The authority has issued detailed guidelines and implementation steps; as no evidence of the guidelines being flouted was presented to the court, the judicial role in the matter is concluded.
Issues: Whether the Court should continue to monitor the conversion of unmanned railway crossings into manned ones after guidelines have been established and implemented by the concerned authority.
Ratio Decidendi: Once the administration frames comprehensive guidelines and takes steps toward implementation, judicial intervention is not required unless there is evidence of non-compliance, in which case the appropriate remedy is to approach the concerned High Court for enforcement.
Result: The writ petition is disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Court's role ends once Railways frame guidelines; flouting may be challenged in High Court. (Para 2 )
3. The court's supervisory role ends with guidelines being framed; enforcement is for High Courts. (Para 2 )
4. Writ petition disposed of. (Para 3 )
5. What is the scope of the Supreme Court's role in ensuring implementation of railway safety guidelines?
The court's role ends once the Railways frame guidelines; any flouting must be challenged before the High Court. (Para 2 )
JUDGMENT :
1. This writ petition was filed by Consumer Education and Research Centre (CERC, Ahmedabad) under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking a direction to Union of India through Ministry of Railways for immediate conversion of unmanned railway crossing gates into manned level-crossings. By the said writ petition, petitioner has prayed that Railways should take steps to formulate and implement Action Plan in order to convert all unmanned railway crossings into manned level-crossings.
2. This petition was filed in 2001. Since then Railways have issued detailed Guidelines. They have also filed a detailed counter indicating steps which have been taken to provide for manned level-crossings. No instance has been brought to our notice where the Guidelines have been flouted. The role of the Court ends with the Guidelines being framed by the Railways. However, if in a given case any of the Guidelines are flouted in implementation in a given State, it would be open to the petitioner to move the concerned High Court with regard to implementation of the said Guidelines.
3. For the aforestated reasons, the writ petition is disposed of.
