The Jharkhand High Court has held that courts have limited scope to interfere with technical and policy decisions taken by railway authorities, refusing to direct the construction of a Road Over Bridge (ROB) or a manned level crossing between Lalgarh Bihar and Rajhura, near Panjarikala village.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions to the authorities to construct a manned level crossing or an ROB at the existing railway line.

The Railways informed the Court that villagers had long demanded a safer crossing as they were currently crossing the railway tracks unauthorisedly, creating serious safety risks. However, it submitted that existing guidelines do not permit the opening of new level crossings and instead envisage their gradual elimination through Limited Height Subways (LHS) or ROBs, depending on site conditions.

The Railways further stated that constructing an ROB at the location in question was not permissible under the applicable guidelines.

Accepting the submissions, the Bench observed that decisions concerning railway infrastructure involve technical expertise and policy considerations, leaving limited scope for judicial interference.

“These are all policy matters or in any event, matters to be decided by the experts in the field and there is really very limited scope for this Court to second guess the opinion of the experts in this arena,” the Court observed.

The Bench also noted that the Railways had already initiated construction of a Limited Height Subway between Panjarikala and Lalgarh Bihar villages to provide an alternative and safer route for crossing the railway line.

Accordingly, the Court declined to issue a direction for the construction of an ROB. However, it directed the Railways to complete the LHS within four months if the work remained unfinished.

The petitioner had also raised concerns that the subway would frequently flood during the monsoon, rendering it unusable. Taking note of the concern, the Court directed the Railways to take all necessary measures to address the flooding problem.

The Bench observed that there would be “no point in spending so much of money in constructing LHS, but not making it conducive for the purpose for which it is being constructed.”

It further emphasised that the subway must serve its intended purpose by enabling villagers and schoolchildren to cross the railway line safely, without having to resort to unauthorised crossings over the tracks.

The Court accordingly disposed of the PIL with these directions and made no order as to costs.

Appearances:

For the petitioner: Advocate Baban Prasad

For the State: Sahbaj Akhtar, Assistant Counsel to AAG-III

For the Railways: Abhijeet Kumar Singh, Central Government Counsel