Delhi High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioner to seek directions against the respondents to hold an enquiry into the incident and act against the responsible officials based on the complaint lodged with the Station Master, Patna with reference to the change of coach in Bakarkana Express on 06-07-2017 from Kodarma station to Patna, a Single Judge Bench of Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. held that the respondent did not fulfil their obligation to ensure that the petitioner had her complaint heard and dealt with and accordingly directed the senior-most officer in the Railway Division concerned to consider the complaint lodged by the petitioner de novo.
Background
The petitioner had planned to travel from Kodarma, Jharkhand to Patna, Bihar via Barkakana Express on 06-07-2017. As a result, she got her travel ticket issued, and the seats were reserved in the S-9 coach. The train was to depart from Kodarma station at 1:20 am and the petitioner was present at the platform with her husband and minor child to board the train.
The petitioner stated that since the display board which shows the location of the train coaches was not working, she stood at the designated place of the S-9 coach. However, upon arrival of the train, she found that the said coach was not adjacent to S-8 but was placed in the front part of the train near the engine.
The petitioner submitted that in a rush to catch the train, she fell, and her husband somehow kept the luggage and the child in some other coach. However, by the time her husband could help her get up, the train started moving. Subsequently, some passengers pulled the chain to stop the train and the petitioner along with her husband were able to board the same.
Aggrieved by the tragic incident wherein the petitioner was on the verge of losing her child, she lodged a complaint on the web portal of the Indian Railways. However, the petitioner contended that the complaint had not been satisfactorily dealt with by the respondents and as a result, filed the instant writ petition.
It was also submitted that before filing the complaint on the web portal, a written complaint was made with the station master at Patna on 06-07-2017.
The respondents stated that the complaint filed by the petitioner had been resolved and a copy of the disposal of the complaint was sent to her vide letter dated 01-12-2017. It was also contended by the respondents that the petitioner should have consulted the enquiry office at the station before the arrival of the train to eliminate the alleged inconvenience that was caused to her.
Analysis and Decision
The Court said that the self-imposed restrictions while exercising writ jurisdiction cannot always be an impediment in resolving issues which reek of arbitrariness in the decision-making process. The Court mentioned that it is well settled that when dealing with the conduct of administrative agencies, strict limitations to statutory rules are not necessary for judicial review by the Court.
The Court stated that no substantial action appeared to have been taken on the complaint made by the petitioner and the disposal letter dated 01-12-2017 merely sought to offer a piece of advice to the petitioner to approach the enquiry counter before the arrival of the train to ascertain coach positions.
The Court stated that there was no doubt in the genuineness of the complaint and that the Railways, falling in the definition of State, was duty bound to ensure the proper functioning of the coach display indicators and in case of any default, it ought to have appropriately redressed the grievance of the petitioner.
Further, the Court stated that the disposal letter neither suggested that any effort was made by the respondents to ascertain the liability of the official concerned nor did it provide any measure that could help in evading such fatal situations in the future.
The Court said that the extensiveness of Railways as a multifaceted institution makes it responsible for reinforcing public safety and the seamless operation of its services.
The Court mentioned the contents of the petitioner’s complaint and said that if such issues are redressed haphazardly, as was done in the present matter, the same could snowball into larger operational challenges and the Railways could fail to instill public confidence. Further, the Court said that the necessity to ensure prompt and valid delivery of public services was not just a norm of good governance, but it had acquired a statutory force in recent times.
The Court also stated that the Supreme Court had established the doctrine of legitimate expectation in Indian Jurisprudence which states that when a person has a reasonable expectation of certain conduct by an administrative agency, the latter would have an obligation to be consulted and reasoned with upon acting contrary to such expectation.
The Court considered the manner in which the complaint of the petitioner had been dealt with and stated that the Railways had been unable to solidify its role as a trusted State entity and pillar of reliability.
The Court said that not only did the respondents have an obligation to ensure that its railway infrastructure was socially inclusive, but they were also responsible for ensuring prompt, effective, and structured complaint resolution mechanisms which efficaciously ensure smooth and proper functioning of such mode of public transportation.
Thus, while disposing of the petition, the Court directed the senior-most officer in the Railway Division concerned to give a de novo consideration to the complaint lodged by the petitioner and also directed the respondents to pass a speaking order within four months.
[Razia Sultan v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 5343, Decided on 06-08-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner — Advocate Umesh Sharma, Advocate Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Ritesh Kumar
For Respondents — Advocate Virendra Pratap Singh Charak, Advocate Subra Parashar
