The Patna High Court in the case Ram Bahadur Pandey and Ors vs. Union of India and Ors observed wherein the PIL is moved seeking direction to the Railways in order to provide a level crossing facility between K.M. 14.10 and to K.M. 14.11 on the Sugauli-Raxaul Railway line which is located near Ramgarhwa Railway Station. Therefore, the court stated that it is not feasible for the Railways in order to provide level crossing at every spot where the road crosses of the railway line.
The division bench comprising of Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Madhuresh Prasad in the case observed and has stated that if blockade is created it would effectively prevent trespass and will protect the villagers from loss of life due to collision by running of the train.
The court in the case stated that the railway lines which also provide the means of transport to the traveling public cannot be allowed to be criss-crossed and to be trespassed at every point where there being the road crossing and the rail track or in the alternative, thus, the rail track crossing the road.
Further, the court in the case observed and has stated that even if the railway track was laid across the road there was no such requirement for a crossing which is to be provided at the specific location as pointed out by the petitioners. Thus, it has also come out in the counter affidavit that just less than half a kilometer away there being a level crossing provided.
The petitioner in the plea also argued that the proposed level crossing would ensure the safe crossing of the railway line through numerous villagers who are around the railway track.
The counsel, Advocate Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam appearing for the petitioner in the case observed and has referred to a map that depicted a road passing through the railway line. Thus, it has been contended by the petitioner in the plea that the road existed on revenue maps even before independence, while the railway line was being constructed later. The said court in the case was informed that there being a proposal to disconnect the access through the road by providing blockade on both sides of the railway track.
Adding to it, the railway in response acknowledged that there being no railway crossing between Sugauli and Ramgarhwa at K.M. 14/10-11.
Further, it has also been submitted by the said court that efforts were made to keep out the unauthorized trespass, however due to the agitation and the protest of the villagers, thus, the work of closure could not be carried out and it has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that there already exists a level crossing approximately 456 meters away from the portion where there being the unauthorized trespass.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL.
The counsel, Advocate, Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, ASG, Dr. Krishna Nandan Singh represented the respondent.
