SWATANTER KUMAR, C. J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner in this petition, Mr. R. S. Keluskar, who is an advocate practising in the Railway Claims Tribunal at Mumbai, filed a claim application before that Tribunal on behalf of one Mr. Jayesh sharad Bhavsar. This claim application was contested on behalf of the Railway. It was stated in the claim application that the claimant had fallen down from the local train and fingers of his right leg came below the wheel of the local train resulting in permanent partial disablement. In these circumstances he claimed the compensation of rs. 5,00,000/ -. A reply was filed wherein it was stated that the accident in question was not an untoward incident within the meaning of section 123 (c) of the Railways Act, 1989 as he had trespassed on the track and not fallen from the train. It was further stated that the applicant is put to strict proof thereof.

( 2 ) THIS claim application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 6th February, 2006, which reads as under:

"a perusal of record shows that appearance of the counsel for the Applicant is highly irregular since long and is causing delay in the disposal. Sufficient concession has been granted to him on the ground that he has filed a PIL in the Honourable High Court. However, the Applicant has brought nothing to our notice that there is any stay of proceedings or any direction has been issued to this Tribunal. The claim application is, therefore, dismissed in default. "

( 3 ) THE petitioner has filed this petition in his own capacity without signature of the Claimant or appropriate authority to him to file the present petition, claiming the following reliefs :

(i) To issue writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction of the same nature in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India; (ii) To award compensation of Rs. 6,28,992. 00 including 50% penalty and 12% interest for the 7 years. (iii) To set aside the dismissal order of the trial court n original claim application no. 109/2000 before the railways Claims Tribunal at Mumbai. (iv) To issue order in respect of Section 123 (c) (2) which includes catching of the train as per definition clause 2 (31) (b ). (v) To act like a mini Parliament and strike down Section 124a (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e ). (vi) To grant such further and other reliefs as may be found necessary in the circumstances of the case; and (vii) To award costs.

( 4 ) THE writ petition was contested on behalf of the Union of india. It was stated that the present writ petition is misconceived and has been filed with malafides and is neither maintainable on facts nor on law. It is further averred that the injured was hurt by a local train and was treated at Bhagwati Hospital, Borivali and after initial treatment was taken to a private hospital, namely, Diamond Hospital and thereafter to Ashwini Hospital at Colaba. The claim application filed by him was dismissed. He was a trespasser on railway track and there was no responsibility on the part of the Railway to pursue the said claim. The said claim was rejected. In addition thereto, it is stated that the petitioner in the present petition, in his own capacity, has earlier filed a Public Interest Litigation being No. 2361 of 2005, which was dismissed by a detailed order dated 8th June, 2006 where similar reliefs were claimed and hence the present writ petition is an abuse of the process of law and, in any case, the provisions of Section 123 (c) (2) and Section 124a of the Railways Act, 1989 are properly constituted and valid, and serve greater public interest.’

( 5 ) AT the very outset we must notice that in the writ petition though the petitioner has referred to filing a claim petition on behalf of the injured, but nowhere in the writ petition a statement has been made that the said claim petition was dismissed as back as on 6th february, 2006. He has not given details of dismissal nor annexed copy of the order though in his prayer he ha

Click Here to Read the rest of this document