1. Petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus to compel railway authorities to construct a manned level crossing or road over bridge due to safety hazards at a crossing location. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Jhk) 2872
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(PIL) No. 613 of 2024
Lalgarh Welfare Society through its President, Kameshwar Singh, aged about 72 years, s/o Late Dev Singh, Resident of Lalgarh, P.O.-Lalgarh P.S-Bishrampur P.S. Bishrampur District – Palamau.….. ….. Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand, represented through Chief Secretary, Jharkhand, At, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District- Ranchi.
2. Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, At, P.O. and P.S. Ranchi, District-Ranchi.
3. Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, At, P.O, and P.S. Medininagar, District- Palamau.
4. Divisional Manager, Rail, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, At, P.O. and P.S. Dhanbad, District – Dhanbad.
5. Senior Divisional Engineer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, At, P.O.and P.S, and District- Dhanbad.….. …. Respondents
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ PRASAD
For the Petitioner : Mr Baban Prasad, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, AC to AAG-III
For the Resp-Railways : Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, CGC
Dated: 15.10.2026
(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)
(Manoj Prasad, J.)
October 15, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr NAFR Uploaded on 15.10.2026
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues for a manned crossing for public convenience, while respondents contend that existing policy favors subways over level crossings based on feasibility and safety guidelines. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 12 )
3. The court observed that construction is a technical policy matter beyond judicial expertise and noted that respondents are actively addressing safety through limited height subways. (Para 4 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 )
4. A writ of mandamus cannot be issued for policy projects involving technical expertise, particularly when authorities are actively addressing the public interest through feasible alternatives. (Para 3 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 13 )
5. The court disposed of the petition directing the completion of the limited height subway within four months, ensuring it effectively addresses potential flooding issues. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 17 )
6. Can a writ of mandamus be issued to compel the construction of a specific infrastructure solution like a road over bridge?
No. The court held that it lacks the expertise to dictate specific infrastructure solutions and that mandamus is unsuitable for technical policy matters where no clear legal right is established. (Para 3 , 4 , 9 )
7. To what extent can courts intervene in the railway's policy decisions regarding infrastructure safety and crossing management?
Judicial intervention is limited. Courts will not second-guess expert technical opinions on railway safety, provided the authorities are actively implementing measures to address identified hazards, such as constructing limited height subways. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
8. Does the court have the power to issue mandatory directions to ensure the efficacy of infrastructure being constructed by public authorities?
Yes. While refusing the original mandamus for a specific bridge, the court directed authorities to ensure the proposed subway is completed expeditiously and remains functional by addressing flooding concerns. (Para 13 , 14 )
1. Heard Mr Baban Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr Sahbaj Akhtar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 (State) and Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 (Railways).
2. The petitioner, in public interest, seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to immediately and forthwith commence and complete construction of works of manned level crossing or Road Over Bridge (ROB) in the existing railway line as described in the petition.
3. At the outset, the parameters for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the effect sought by the petitioner have not been made out. To seek a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has to establish a legal right in itself or the persons it represents and a corresponding legal duty upon the respondents.
4. In any event, even if such position is overlooked, we must confess that this Court does not have the expertise to decide on the issue as to whether a manned level crossing or a Road Over Bridge (ROB) is the best solution for the problem highlighted by the petitioner in this petition.
5. On behalf of 4th and 5th respondents (Railways), the Senior Divisional Engineer (1), (East Central Railway), Dhanbad has filed a detailed affidavit.
6. Paragraphs 6 to 13 of this affidavit are instructive and therefore, the same are transcribed below for the convenience of reference.
“6. That it is stated that there has been a long-standing demand from villagers for the construction of a manned Level Crossing (LC) or a Road Over Bridge ROB between Lalgarh Bihar and Rajhura (near Panjarikala village). The villagers are currently using this location for unauthorized trespassing, which poses a serious safety hazard.
7. That it is stated that repeated representations have been made by the Railway authorities to the State Government, including the Transport Commissioner of Jharkhand, for the provision of necessary funds for construction of a ROB. However, no commitment has been received so far.
8. That it is stated that as per the existing Railway guidelines, no new Level Crossing is to be opened. In fact, the Railways are progressively eliminating existing LCs to reduce accidents by providing Limited Height Subways (LHS) or ROBs, depending on site conditions.
9. That so far as the policy of railway is concerned as per Railway Board’s updated policy issued vide letter no. 2017/CE-IV/LX/Misc./244(LCs) Pt. dated 02.03.2023, para 2.1.3, in exceptional cases where there is no LC but the location is prone to trespassing affecting the safety of train operations and fixed railway infrastructure, Railways may consider provision of RUBs/LHS/FOB at Railway cost, subject to feasibility.
10. That it is stated that based on this policy, after thorough examination of the site, it was decided to construct a Limited Height Subway (LHS) at location Km 307/31-308/01 between Lalgarh Bihar Railway Station and Panjarikala on RHR-TRZ section. The construction of LHS has already begun and the work is in progress.
11. That in the light of the policy of Indian Railway the proposed location does not meet the Railway’s eligibility guidelines for ROB construction as it is not situated on a National Highway, State Highway, or District Road, nor does it cater to any industrial traffic necessitating movement of heavy vehicles.
12. That it is stated that as per policy, ROB construction can only be considered on a cost-sharing basis with the State Government. However, no confirmation letter regarding cost sharing for ROB construction has been received from the State Government in this office to date. Therefore, at present, no ROB work is being undertaken at this location.
13. That in view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, it is evident that the present status is that Railways are constructing a Limited Height Subway (LHS) at location Km 307/31-308/01 between Panjarikala and Lalgarh Bihar villages, which will provide alternative passage to cross railway track and address the long pendi
