Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 3032
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J.
Gurbax Colony Resident Asso. & Ors. – Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. – Respondents
CWP NO. 14613 of 2012 (O&M)
Decided On : 11-05-2023
Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S.P. Garg, Advocate; For the Petitioner
Mr. S.P. Jain, Addl. Solicitor General of India with Ms. Saigeeta Srivastava, Advocate for Respondents No.1 & 2- Union of India.
Mr. Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Haryana.
Headnote:(A) Railways Act, 1989 - Section 19(2) - Public convenience and safety - Residents sought access through a disputed area but faced obstruction due to railway structures, demanding construction of a railway over bridge - Petitioners claimed rights to access without alternative passage. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Technical feasibility - Expert reports deemed the construction of a railway over bridge unfeasible due to safety concerns and lack of land, despite petitioners’ insistence on convenience. (Paras 18-21)
Facts of the case:
Residents of Gurbax Colony sought access to amenities obstructed by railway infrastructure, having made representations to various authorities over several years. (Paras 2-6)
Findings of Court:
Expert opinions established that no railway over bridge could be constructed safely at the disputed site, given steep curves and land issues. (Paras 9, 20)
Issues: Whether the residents have a right to an additional access point or are provided adequate alternatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that public safety takes precedence over mere convenience, affirming the technical reports and declining the petition. (Paras 18-23)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for access to road granted by residents. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents claim alternative access exists. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. residents argue personal vendetta against them. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. technical analysis shows impractical level crossing. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. feasibility reports submitted confirm non-viability. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. petitioners face difficulties but alternatives exist. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court cites judicial restraint in technical matters. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 8. petition dismissed; no grounds for further access. (Para 23 , 24) |
JUDGMENT
Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J. (Oral)
The present petition has been filed by the residents of one Gurbax Colony for seeking issuance of directions to the respondents to provide access to the residents of the colony to the road which is the only source of commutation for the residents of Gurbax Colony and Balmiki Colony to the rest of the town of Kalka and to direct the Railways to provide Railway over bridge for the commutation for the residents of the said colonies.
2. Briefly summarised, the facts of the present case are that the petitioners who are residents of Gurbax Colony situated in Kalka claim the said colony to be inhabitant by more than 200 families. The said colony is adjacent to another colony namely Balmiki Colony. The grievance of the petitioners is that respondent No.1 and 2 i.e. the Union of India as well as the Divisional Railway Manager, Ambala Cantt. Ambala had barricaded the passage leading towards the access of the houses of the residents of Gurbax Colony. It is contended that the petitioners have been residing in the said colony for the last more than 10-15 years and have been duly paying all statutory taxes and charges claimed by the respective Agencies and Instrumentalities of the State. The colony in question has been constructed as per the by-laws of the Municipal Council and after seeking necessary approvals for the constructions of the residential houses. It is averred that there is a street connecting the Gurbax Colony with the Kalka City and the pillars have been raised by the respondents-Railways which obstruct the residents of the colony from commuting within the Kalka City. A representation dated 09.05.2011 was submitted to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka for providing a permanent passage to facilitate the movements of the residents of the colony. The same was claimed to have been endorsed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kalka to the Secretary, Municipal Corporation Kalka for inquiring into the matter and submission of report. A similar representation was also submitted to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, Ambala Cantt. Ambala on 07.07.2011 praying for providing level crossing or constructing a Railway over bridge. It was also alleged that the residents of the colony have to pass through 12 feet wide street which passes over the railway line in order to access the public amenities like school, hospitals and the markets for the purpose of having any meaningful existence. Despite the submission in the said representations, the level crossing and/or Railway over bridge had not been constructed by the Railways and/or the State Government due to which the hardships of the residents of the said colonies have been compounded.
3. A reply had been filed by Manita Malik, HCS, SDM, Kalka on behalf of respondent No.3, wherein it was stated that the feasibility plan qua providing any additional/alternative mode of commutation is to be provided by the Railways taking into consideration the site conditions and problems of the inhabitants and that the same being a part of the railway property, the respondent No.3 i.e. the State of Haryana does not have much control.
4. A separate short written statement was also filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 through the Sr. Divisional Engineer-III of Northern Railway, Ambala Division, Ambala. It was pointed out in the above-said short written statement that
