UNION OF INDIA & ORSversusJ.D. SURYAVANSHI

                         [2011) 11 S.C.R. 158


A                     UNION OF INDIA & ORS
                                   v.
                          J.D. SURYAVANSHI
                   (Civil Appeal No. 7658 of 2011)
                        SEPTEMBER 5, 2011
B
         [R.V.   RAVEENDRAN AND A. K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950.·

c         Article 226 - Writ petition - Scope of - In a writ petition
    filed as a public interest litigation High Court issuing series
    of interim orders effecting changes in timings of several
    trains, adding of coaches to several trains etc. - In some
    cases, Railways informed that demand for further trains!
0   coaches would not be feasible - However, High Court
    directing the Railways to provide a full AC-II coach in Intercity
    Express, and the General Manager (Traffic) to file his
    personal affidavit - Held: GoiPg into details of railway
    administration and train schedule management are totally
    alien to judicial review and beyond judicially manageable
E   standards - Railway administration is a specialized field - fl
    has to cater to the needs of the entire country - High Court
    cannot interfere in regard to one sector without any material
    or information nor can it direct introduction of trains or
    additional coaches of a particular category or change in
F   timings of a train - It has been repeatedly emphasised that
    courts should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-
    to-day functioning of departments of governments or statutory
    bodies -      The malaise of interference in the functioning of
    Railway administration is a matter of concern - Impugned
G   order of High Court set aside and it would dispose of the writ
    petition itself without any fwther directions of similar nature -
    Administrative Law - Judicial review - Railways - Public
    interest litigation.

H                                 158
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI              159


     In compliance of the interim directions of the High A
Court in a writ petition filed as public interest litigation,
the Railway administration effected changes in the
timings of several trains and also added coaches to
several trains. However, in some cases, the Railway
administration informed the High Court that the demand 8
for further- trains/coaches would not be feasible. The
HJgh Court directed the General Manager (Traffic),·
R~Q:ways to file his personal affidavit and further directed
tbe'Railways to provide a full AC-II coach in Intercity
Express. For alleged 'disobedience of one of the interim C
orders, a ccintempt petition was also filed against the
Railways.
     Allowing the appeal filed by the Railways, the Court
       HELD: 1.1. Railway administration is a specialized        o
 field. It has to cater to the needs of the entire country. It
 has to distribute and utilize the available resources and
 the available Rolling· Stock equitably, uniformly, and
 appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. The
·High Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector        E
 without having any material or information about the
 requirements of other sectors available infrastructure,
 existing demands and constraints, safety requirements
 etc. Nor ~an the High Court direct introduction of trains
 or additional coaches of a particular category or direct        F
 change in timings of a train. Any attempt to pick and
choose one train or one sector for improving the
functioning will lead to chaos involving technical snags
and safety problems. [para 8] [165-A-G]
     Union of India v. Nagesh - 2002 (7) SCC 603; 8a/co G
Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India & Ors. 2001 (5)
 Suppl. SCR 511 = 2002 (2) SCC 333; Federation of
Railway Officers Association vs. Union of India 2003 (2)
 SCR 1085 =2003 (4) SCC 289; and Directorate of Film
Festivals vs. Gaurav Ashwin Jain 2007 (5 ) SCR 7 = 2007 H
     160      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011] 11 S.C.R.


 A (4) sec 737- relied on

         Chief Constable of the North Wales Police vs. Evans
     1982 (2) All ER 141 - referred to.

        1.2. This court has repeatedly warned that courts
· B should resist the temptation to usurp the power of the
    Executive by entering into arenas which are exclusively
    within the domain of the executive, and should not
    interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to-day
    functioning of any departments of governments or
  C statutory bodies. Even within the executive, the need for
    separation of roles has been voiced. [para 9.-10) [168-C·
    E]

           Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998) - referred to.

 D      1.3. The record of the case shows that Railway had
   made all efforts to comply with the requirements/earlier
   directions of the High Court. Courtesies extended by
   Railways should not be taken as readiness to comply
   with impractical suggestions and unreasonable
 E directions. The malaise of interference in the functioning
   of Railway administration is a matter of concern. The
   Railways should have the freedom and independence to
   grow, develop, improve and serve the nation. [para 11)
   [168-H; 169-A-C]
 F
        1.4. The impugned interim order dated 5.7.2010 is set
   aside. The High Court would dispose of the writ petition
   itself without any further directions of similar nature. [para
   12] [169-C-D)
 G                       Case Law Reference:
           2002 (7) sec 603          relied on          para 7
           2001 (5) Suppl. SCR 511 relied on            para 9

 H         2003 ( 2) SCR 1085        relied on          para 9
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI                    161


    2007 (5 ) SCR 7                 relied on           para 9        A
    1982 (2) All ER 141             referred to         para 9
    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7658 of 2011.
                                                                      B
    From the Judgment & Order dated 5.7.2010 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwailor Bench in Writ Petition No.
1652 of 2009 (PIL) ..

     Indira Jaisingh, ASG, Abhinav Mukerji, Samridhi Sinha for        C
the Appellants.

    The Order of the Court was delivered by

                           ORDER

    R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J. 1. Leave granted.                             D

     2. The respondent, a practicing lawyer, filed a public
interest litigation in the year 2009 in the Madhya Pradesh High
Court (Gwalior Bench) praying for issue of the following
directions to the Railway administration (Western Railway, West       E
Central Railway and North Central Railway) :

     (i)     the additional berths from Three Tier Sleeper & AC
             Class Coaches in all trains;

     (ii}    to complete the second track between Gwalior and         F
             Indore; and submit a progress report to court in
             respect of the work done in the last 25 years;

     (iii}   to reschedule the train timings of Bhind - Indore
             Intercity Express (Train No.9319/9320} and               G
             Gwalior-Indore Express (Train No.1125/1126}
             taking into account various factors and not to stop
             the train at Parihar and Laxmibai Nagar;

     (iv)    to fill all vacant posts of coolies in all stations to   H
             avoid discomfort to passenger$;
    162          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 11 S.C.R.


A         (v)     to introduce additional 3 tier sleeper coaches in all
                  trains between Gwalior and Indore;

          (vi)    to introduce additional coaches (AC-I & AC-Ill) in
                  Dehradun Express, additional coaches (AC I and
                  AC-II tier) in Bhind-lndore Intercity Express and
B
                  Gwalior-Indore Expresses (Train No.9319, 9320,
                  1125 & 1126);

          (vii)   to extend train route of Ujjain-Dehradun Express
                  (Train No.4309 and 4310) upto Indore;
c
          (viii) to re-schedule the timings of Intercity Express and
                 Dehradun Express to enable more passengers can
                 use them and;

          (ix)    to extend the route of Shuttle Express (Gwalior-
D
                  Guna-Gwalior) and lndore-Maksi-lndore upto Indore
                  and Gwalior respectively during day time.

       3. The High Court passed a series of interim orders in the
  said case, in compliance of which, Railways made changes in
E the timings of several trains. They also added AC-II coaches,
  AC-I coaches, composite (AC-111 cum AC-II) coaches to several
  trains. In some cases, the Railway Administration informed the
  court that the demand for further trains/coaches will not be
  feasible or could not be met, either due to technical reasons
F or lack of full capacity utilization in regard to existing trains/
  coaches. They also pointed out that certain seasonal increase
  in passenger traffic like summer vacations, cannot be a ground
  for permanent or throughout the year addition of new trains or
  addition of new coaches.
G        4. But the High Court was not satisfied. It got into details
    of railway administration and train schedule management,
    which were totally alien to judicial review, and beyond judicially
    manageable standards. We extract below a typical interim
    order passed on 17.12.2009:
H
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI                    163
            [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
     "It is reported to us that the Intercity Express though has      A
     some berths to accommodate the passengers who
     propose to travel in II AC but the bogie is made in two parts
     half of it is reserved for II AC while the other half is being
     utilized by the passengers traveling in Ill AC.
                                                                      B
     Learned counsel for the respondents pray for time to seek
     instructions in the matter.

     Let the General Manger (Traffic), Railways file his personal
     affidavit in the matter as to why such a bogie has been
     provided and what problem would be faced by the Railway          C
     Administration if instead of half boogie II AC a full boogie
     II AC is provided."

     5. By the impugned interim order dated 5.7.2010, the High
Court directed the Railways to provide a Full AC-11 coach in the      o
Intercity Express. The High Court further directed the Railways
to consider and introduce AC-I coach in the Intercity Express.
While issuing the said direction the High Court observed:
"Needless to say the Benches of this prestigious High Court
are smoothly functioning at both the cities viz. Gwalior and          E
 Indore" thereby implying that the AC-I coach was necessary in
the Intercity Express because the High Court has Benches at
Gwalior and Indore. The High Court also directed the
impleadment of Army Regiments and Border Security Forces
to the PIL. It further directed the learned counsel for the Union
of India to submit in writing how many officers of Central
                                                                      F
Government, Armed Forces and Border Security Forces are
required to travel from Gwalior to Indore and back. For alleged
disobedience of one of the interim orders, a contempt petition
(No.178/2009) was also filed against the Railway which
appears to be pending.                                                G

    6. Feeling aggrieved the Railways have filed this petition
contending as follows:

      (i)   High Court has no jurisdiction to direct either the       H
    164           SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 11 S.C.R.

A                  addition or deletion of coaches on any particular
                   train, or to direct the change of freouencies or
                   timings of a particular train.

           (ii)    Any directions for providing additional coache5
                   where the trains were alreaay runnini:i with its
B
                   normal load of 15 coaches would causes several
                   technical problems, coach shortages in other trains,
                   complications, safety violations etc.

           (iii)   The High Court was not justified in directing the
c                  Railways to attach a full AC-II tier & AC-I, coaches
                   in the Gwalior Indore Express 1125/1126.

         7. A three Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India v.
    Nagesh - 2002 (7) SCC 603, dealing with similar directions
0   regarding Railways by the said High Court, had set aside a
    decision of the High Court directing the central govemment to
    reschedule the timings of the Awantika Super Fast Express.
    This Court held:

          "After we heard the matter, we are of the view that such a
E         direction could not have been issued by the High Court to
          the appellants herein in a petition under Article 226 of the
          Constitution. What would be the scheduled timings for a
          train for its departure and arrival is an administrative
          decision keeping in view the larger public interest or public
F         convenience and not the convenience of the public of a
          particular town. Such a decision is within the exclusive
          administrative domain of the Railways and is not liable to
          be interfered with in a petition filed under Article 226 of
          the Constitution."
G
                                                 (Emphasis supplied)

        In spite of the said decision rendered in regard to the
  similar earlier orders of the said High Court, the Division Bench
  of the High Court has chosen to indulge in a similar exercise
H in this case.
    UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI                165
             [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
      8. Railway administration is a specialized field. It has to A
cater to the needs of the entire country. It has limited resources
 and limited number of railway engines and railway coaches,
 particularly AC coaches, more particularly AC-I class coaches.
 Railway will have to distribute and utilize the available
 resources and the available Rolling Stock equitably, uniformly, B
 and appropriately to serve all the sections of the country. It is
 possible that in a particular section there may be hardship,
 inconveniences and need for introduction of more trains, better
timings, and better facilities. But one sector is not India. We
 shudder to think what would happen if every High Court starts     c
giving directions to the Railway to provide additional trains,
additional coaches and change timings wherever they feel that
 there is a shortage of trains or need for better timings. Even in
 the State of Madhya Pradesh, we are sure that apart from
Gwalior-Indore sector, there are other sectors which may be
                                                                    0
facing similar hardships and problems. The Railway does not
exist to cater to a particular sector. It is for the Railway
administration to decide where, how and when trains or
coaches should be added or the timings should be changed.
The Courts do not have data inputs, specialized knowledge or.
the technical skills required for running the Railways. The High E
Court cannot interfere in regard to only one sector without
 having any material or information about the requirements of
 other sectors available infrastructure, existing demands and
constraints, safety requirements etc. Nor can the High Court.
direct introduction of trains or additional coaches of a particular F
category or direct change in timings of a train. Changing the
timing of a train is not a simple process, but requires co-
ordinated efforts, as it would affect the timings of other trains.
There are also different types of trains - express trains,
superfast trains, passenger trains, goods trains, with different G
speeds and priorities. Any atternpt to pick and choose one train
or one sector for improving the functioning. will led to chaos
involving technical snags and safety problems.

    9. In Ba/co Employees' Union (Regd.) vs. Union of India        H
      166       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 11 S.C.R.


A   & Ors. [2002 (2) SCC 333], this Court held :
            "Judicial interference by way of PIL is available if there is
            injury to public because of dereliction of constitutional or
            statutory obligations on the part of the Government. Here
            it is not so and in the sphere of economic policy or reform
B
            the court is not the appropriate forum. Every matter of
            public interest or curiosity cannot be the subject-matter of
            PIL. Courts are not intended to and nor should they conduct
            the administration of the country. Courts will interfere only
            if there is a clear violation of constitutional or statutory
c           provisions or non-compliance by the State with its
            constitutional or statutory duties. None of these
            contingencies arise in this present case."

                                                  (Emphasis supplied)
D
    In Federation of Railway Officers Association vs. Union of
    India [2003 (4) sec 289] this Court was considering a
  challenge to the government's proposal to form new railway
  zones. The appellant therein placed some material to
E demonstrate that formation of new railway zones may not
  increase the efficiency of railway administration. This Court
  refused to interfere and observes :

            "Even otherwise, to meet the demands of backward areas
            cannot by itself be inconsistent with efficiency. When the
F .         Railways is a public utility service, it has to take care of
            all S!reas including backward areas. In doing so, providing
            service, efficient supervision and keeping the equipment
            and other material in good and workable condition are all
            important factors ....
G
            Further, when technical questions arise and experts in the
            field have expressed various views and all those aspects
            have been taken into consideration by the Government in
            deciding the matter, could it still be said that this Court
            should re-examine to interfere with the same? The
H
   UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. J.D. SURYAVANSHI                  16-7
            [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J,]
    wholesome rule in regard to judicial interference in            A
    administrative decisions is that if the Government takes
    into consideration all relevant factors, eschews from
    considering irrelevant factors and acts reasonably within
    the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same."
                                                                    B
    In Directorate of Film Festivals vs. Gau'rav Ashwin Jain
(2007 (4) SCC 737], this Court held :

    "The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is now
    well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as Appellate
    Authorities examining the correctness, suitability and C
    appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the
    executive on matters of policy which the executive is
    entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when
    examining a policy of the Government is to check whether
    it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is D
    opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed
    to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts
    cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is
    erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser·
    alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the E
    wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial
    review".

     The following observations of House of L0rds setting the·
limits of judicial review in Chief Constable of the North Wales
Police vs. Evans 1982 (2) All ER 141, can be usefully referred      F


    "The function of the court is to see that lawful authority is
    not abused by unfair treatment and not to attempt itself the
    task entrusted to that authority by the law... The purpose      G
    of judicial review is to ensure that the individual receives
    fair treatment, and not to ensure that the authority, after
    according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is
    authorized by law to decide for itself a conclusion which
    is correct in the eyes of the court."                           H
    168       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 11 $.C.R.


A         "Judicial review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from
          a decision, but a review of the manner in which the
          decision was made ...... Judicial review is concerned, not
          with the decision, but with the decision-making process.
          Unless that restriction on the power of the court is
B         observed, the court will in my view, under the guise of
          preventing the abuse of power, be itself guilty of usurping
          power."

       This court has repeatedly warned that courts should resist
  the temptation to usurp the power of the Executive by entering
C into arenas which are exclusively within the domain of the
  executive.

       10. How many coaches should be attached, what types of
  coaches are to be attached, on which lines what trains should
D run, what should be their timings and frequency, are all matters
  to be decided by the Railway administration using technical
  inputs, depending upon financial, administrative, social and
  other considerations. This Court has repeatedly held that courts
  should not interfere in matters of policy or in the day-to-day
E functioning of any departments of governments or statutory
  bodies. Even within the executive, the need for separation of
  roles has been voiced. We may usefully refer to the following
  observation in the Rakesh Mohan Committee Report (1998)
  made in a different context :
F         "With regard to institutional separation of roles, into policy,
          regulatory and management functions, these roles are
          currently blurred, which causes confusion about the
          underlying vision and mission of Indian Railway. The
          institutional separation of roles will mean that policy makers
G         are limited to setting policy; regulators fix competition rules
          in general and pricing in particular; management manages
          and is measured against clear performance indicators."

        11. The record of the case shows that Railway had made
H all efforts to comply with the requirements/earlier directions of
       UNION OF INDIA & ORS v. JD. SURYAVANSHI                 169
                [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.]
the High Court. Courtesies extended by Railways should not            A
be taken as readiness to comply with impractical suggestions
and unreasonable directions. The malaise of interference in the
 functioning of Railway administration is a matter of concern.
Courts, bureaucracy and political leaders should give up the
tendency to compel or pressurize the Railway administration           B
to cater to only parts of the country particularly to the State or
area to which they belong. Any such attempt to promote only
regional interests would affect the national interest. The Railways
should have the freedom and independence to grow, develop,
improve and serve the nation. Be that as it may.                      c
     12. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed and the
impugned interim order dated 5. 7 .2010 of the High Court is set
aside. In the light of what is stated above, we request the High
Court to dispose of the writ petition itself without any further
directions of similar nature.                                         D

R.P.                                            Appeal allowed.