Court emphasizes adherence to Railway policy on level crossing elimination; orders measures to prevent flooding of subway ensuring safe passage for villagers and school children
In a significant judgment dated October 15, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Manoj Prasad) disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by Lalgarh Welfare Society seeking a writ of mandamus for the immediate construction of either a manned level crossing or a Road Over Bridge (ROB) at a railway crossing near Panjarikala village in Palamau district.
The petitioner highlighted the safety hazards faced by villagers and school children who currently trespass unauthorizedly across railway tracks due to the absence of a proper crossing. The petition sought a judicial direction compelling the State of Jharkhand and Indian Railways to construct a manned level crossing or ROB at the site.
The Court, however, declined to issue the mandamus, underscoring that such an extraordinary writ can be issued only where a legal right and corresponding legal duty are clearly established. The bench noted that the petitioner failed to demonstrate such enforceable legal rights or duties in this matter.
Delving deeper, the Court examined the detailed affidavit filed by the Senior Divisional Engineer of East Central Railway, Dhanbad. The affidavit clarified that Indian Railways follows a strict policy of not opening new level crossings and progressively eliminating existing ones to reduce accidents. Instead, alternatives such as Limited Height Subways (LHS) or ROBs are constructed based on site eligibility and feasibility.
The proposed site did not satisfy Railway eligibility criteria for ROB construction as it is neither located on a National Highway, State Highway, nor a District Road, and does not cater to industrial traffic requiring heavy vehicle movement. Moreover, ROB construction requires cost-sharing by the State Government, which had not provided any commitment for financial contribution.
Importantly, the affidavit disclosed that Railways had already commenced the construction of a Limited Height Subway at the location in question, envisaged as an alternative safe passage for villagers and school children.
While acknowledging this effort, the Court expressed concern over reports that the LHS remained incomplete and prone to flooding during monsoon seasons, thereby failing to fully address the safety concerns. The Court emphasized that public funds should not be wasted on infrastructure that remains unusable due to preventable issues such as waterlogging.
Consequently, the Court directed the Railways to expedite the completion of the LHS within four months and mandated remedial measures to address flooding, ensuring the passage remains safe and accessible. It further ordered the filing of a compliance report by March 12, 2027, with a status hearing scheduled for March 18, 2027, to monitor adherence.
The judgment underscores the principle that policy decisions and technical assessments regarding railway infrastructure are primarily within the domain of expert authorities, with limited judicial interference. It also highlights the importance of coordinated funding and planning between Railways and State Governments for infrastructure projects like ROBs.
The Court appreciated the petitioner for raising a public safety issue while balancing judicial restraint in matters of policy and technical expertise.
Bottom Line:
Public Interest Litigation seeking mandamus for construction of manned level crossing or Road Over Bridge at railway crossing site - High Court held that no mandamus can be issued in absence of enforceable legal right and corresponding legal duty - Choice between level crossing, ROB or other alternative infrastructure is a policy/expert matter - Since Railways had already undertaken construction of Limited Height Subway under applicable policy, Court declined prayer for ROB but directed expeditious completion of LHS and measures to address flooding so that public funds are not wasted and villagers and school children can safely use the passage.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India (Writ jurisdiction of High Courts)
Lalgarh Welfare Society v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3000398
