RAILWAY CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ADVOCATES ASSOCIATION & ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Present writ petition, in the nature of Public Interest Litigation, is filed by the petitioners seeking the following relief/s:

"(A) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the requisitions and communications dated 04.05.2016 by which the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal Principal Bench Delhi accorded approval to the proposal of the shifting of the premises of Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench to the new premises at Railway Building, Kalupur Ahmedabad and further be pleased to quash and set aside the communications dated 06.05.2016 issued by the Member Judicial Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench accepting the approval and forwarding the same to the Western Railways Liason Officer.

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide an independent infrastructure facilities to the Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a writ and/or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Ministry of Law and Justice to provide any other and suitable convenient premises on ownership and/or permanent lease basis for functioning of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad;

(D) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ and/or writ in the nature of mandamus declaring any such shifting of premises of a Judicial Authority as the Railway Claims Tribunal in a premises owned and managed by its biggest sole litigant-Railway Administration as illegal and unconstitutional;

(E) Pending hearing and till final disposal of the present public interest litigation, YOUR Lordships may be pleased to pass an order restraining the shifting of the Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad Bench from the present premises and further be pleased to pass an order for continuation of the Railway Claims Tribunal Ahmedabad bench in the current premises suitable at Memnagar, Ahmedabad or in any other building not managed by the railway administration;"

The facts germane for deciding the controversy involved in this petition are as under:

2.1. It is the case of the petitioners that the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad was set up in Maninagar area of Ahmedabad City in the year 1991 and since then, a constant demand has been raised by the Members of the petitioner-Association for establishing a separate building at Gandhigram Railway Station, Ahmedabad. However, no heed has been paid by the railway administration for redressal of the grievance raised by the Members. It is further the case of the petitioners that the premises at Maninagar is rented one and it was continued till 2005 in spite of various requests made by the Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal.

2.2. In the year 2005, the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench was shifted from Maninagar, Ahmedabad to the present location at Memnagar, Ahmedabad and presently, it is functioning in the said premises. That the said premises is also a rented premises.

2.3. It is further the case of the petitioners that in the year 2008, an attempt was made by the Western Railway Administration to shift the Tribunal from the present location to Old DRM Office at Ahmedabad Railway Station, which is near to the proposed site. However, the Judicial Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench raised serious objections with regard to the location of the premises citing infrastructural constraints .

2.4. Pursuant to the objections raised by the Judicial Member, the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench refused to accord his sanction for shifting of the premises vide his letter dated 15.07.2008. Consequently, the lease of the present premises at Memnagar was renewed and the same has been continuing till today.

2.5. Since the year 2010, the petitionerAssociation and its Members have been raising serious concerns with regard to shifting of the premises to Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur citing different reasons. It is further the case of the petitioners that there were certain issues between the Western Railway Administration and the landlord of the present premises with regard to payment of rent and other taxes. Thereafter, the Divisional Railway Manager, Ahmedabad Division, vide letter dated 10.07.2015, requested the Chief Claims Officer, Western Railway Head Quarters to nominate PO/RCT-ADI as Liaison Officer between the Railway Claims Tribunal and ADI Division for smooth relocation and functioning of RCT at the new location. It is further the case of the petitioners that the Deputy Chief Claims Manager, Western Zonal Railway Administration, who was nominated as the Liaison officer, raised serious objections for shifting of the Tribunal at the proposed location. Thereafter, on 29.07.2015, the Additional Registrar of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad was appointed as the Liaison Officer for relocation of the Railway Claims Tribunal at Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur. The said Liaison Officer forwarded a negative opinion and remarks on the proposed shifting.

2.6. In view of the opinion received from the Liaison Officer and the perusal of the physical inspection report, the Members of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad rejected the proposed change of location, vide order dated 11.08.2015. The said order was communicated to the Administration through the Registrar vide letter dated 11.08.2015 wherein, it was clarified that the proposal of shifting the premises from current location to the proposed location at PRS Centre, Kalupur has been rejected by the Member, Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad. Thereafter, the Chief Claims Commissioner forwarded the said objections and refusal to the Divisional Railway Manager and requested to explore more suitable location for shifting of the Tribunal.

2.7. The Deputy Chief Claims Commissioner proposed two locations for shifting of the premises wherein, an offer to the tune of Rs.50 per square feet with 15% increment every 3 years was made. There was also an offer by the landlord of present premises for providing the premises at the rate of Rs.30/- per square feet and 3% increment every 3 years. Hence, it is the case of the petitioners that serious objections were raised by the members of the petitioner association as the present location was more suitable for functioning of the Tribunal as it is situated in a more convenient location and at a better rate. The Member Judicial, looking into the representations of the lawyers and the independence of the judiciary, have strongly opposed shifting of the premises to the proposed building.

2.8. However, the Judicial Member in a complete overturn of the previous opinion, vide letter dated 21.04.2016, agreed for shifting of the premises by considering the same to be appropriate for which earlier she had already rendered a negative opinion. Therefore, the petitioner association through its members made representation to the Chairman, Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi Principal Bench. However, the then Chairman (Member Technical) directed for shifting of the premises to the proposed Railway building in complete disregard to the previous suggestions of the Member Judicial of Ahmedabad Bench. The Member Judicial, Ahmedabad Bench addressed a communication to the Liason Officer to commence the procedure for shifting of the premises vide communication dated 06.05.2016. The petitioner therefore, once again represented before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Delhi but no response is received. Hence, present petition is filed by the petitioner association.

Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr.S.N.Shelat with learned advocate Mr. Vikas V. Nair for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Hriday Buch appearing for the newly added respondents, Mr. Ramnandan Singh for respondent No.2, 4 and 5 and learned advocate Mr. Kamlesh S. Kotai for respondent Nos. 6 to 12.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shelat appearing for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondent authorities of shifting the location of Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad from the present location to the proposed premises, which is situated in the congested area of Kalupur in Ahmedabad City, is in direct contravention to the basic principles embodied under the Constitution for the independence of judiciary. The shifting of the Tribunal to the proposed place would create unnecessary hardship and inconvenience to the advocates and litigants as the proposed place is situated in a densely populated area with heavy traffic congestions. It is situated next to a public urinal and thereby, making it an unsuitable for setting up of the Tribunal. The judicial Members would not be having a congenial and peaceful atmosphere for smooth conduct of the business, which shall result in great injustice to the litigants at large.

Learned counsel further contended that judicial propriety, independence and free will is at stake due to the undue influence of the administrative offices functioning in the same premises and the infrastructure being provided by the parent Ministry of the biggest litigant before the Tribunal.

Learned counsel would contend that the basic principle that needs to be taken care of is the independence of judiciary and the supply of infrastructural and administrative support by the parent Ministry. If the judicial body is set up in the premises of the biggest litigant itself, then it would not be able to function independently. This is one of the most important factors to be considered by the authority while proposing to shift the premises of the Tribunal. In support of this contention, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shelat has relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 1. The location of the Tribunal should be such as it should provide an atmosphere of smooth working of the Tribunal. Learned counsel has referred to the opinion dated 11.08.2015 given by the Member (Technical) which is at page 71 of the compilation and submitted that the Member (T) has specifically observed that the location as proposed is clearly not suitable to any of the stake holders for conducive and smooth working of Railway Claims Tribunal and therefore the proposed location at Kalupur Railway Station which is always full of crowd and chaos all the time due to the constant movement of public is not proper for smooth functioning of the Tribunal. Learned counsel further referred to the letter dated 18.03.2016 which is at page 123 of the compilation and submitted that vide said communication the Member (Judicial) has opined that the proposed location is not suitable. However, the Member (Judicial) immediately within a period of two months only gave second opinion which is at page 126 and 127 of the compilation and opined that the proposed building appears to be appropriate, which is not proper.

It is further contended that the building of the Tribunal should meet with the situation of future rise in litigations having regard to the increased awareness and increased use of railway facilities. It should not be a short term planning, which may meet with the requirements of the present day only. Access for litigants, lawyers and staff is vital for choosing a location. It is submitted that the roads approaching Ahmedabad Railway premises at Kalupur is highly congested and difficult to access. Learned counsel would further contend that it is not so that the building of the Tribunal should be situated at the Railway Station or near the Central bus-stop or Taxi-stand but, the primary object should be as to whether it is easily accessible or not. Moreover, the Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur would be prone to security threats considering the movement of public in large numbers and therefore, the shifting of judicial body to such area would not be appropriate. Further, the area is also communally sensitive. It was, therefore, submitted that the proposed place is not proper for setting-up of the Tribunal.

It is further contended that the litigants are not supposed to remain present on daily basis and therefore the convenience of the lawyers and judicial members is to be taken care of while deciding any location. In the State of Gujarat many Tribunals like Consumers, Sales Tax, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Customs and Excise, etc. have their own independent premises. The petitioners have no personal interest whatsoever in the present building or the petitioners are not interested in Government spending more money towards rent rather petitioners are interested in having proper court building for trial of railway cases which can be conveniently accessed by the lawyers and the litigants. Learned counsel for the petitioners, therefore, submitted that the present petition be allowed and relief/s prayed for be granted.

Learned advocate Mr.Hriday Buch appearing for the newly added respondents has adopted the arguments advanced by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Shelat for the petitioners and submitted that this petition be allowed.

On the other hand, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh appearing for the railway authorities submitted that present petition in the nature of public interest litigation is not maintainable. The petitioners are having personal interest in filing this petition because they are directly affected by transfer of premises of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad, as such the petitioners do not fulfill the criteria laid down under Rule 3(b) of the High Court of Gujarat (Practice and Procedure for Public Interest Litigation) Rules, 2010. Therefore, the petition may be dismissed only on this ground. It is further submitted that proposed shifting is done because of the premises of the Tribunal cannot be continued to be in the rented premises and apart from that, the private owner cannot be compelled to continue to let his premises forever. In this circumstance, the railway has selected a premises which would be of permanent nature and the distance between the new proposed premises and the present premises is only 6 kms. Moreover, the shifting is also aimed to provide easy approach to the litigants to the Tribunal. The distance between the proposed premises and the railway station is just at walking distance and therefore by proposed shifting poor litigants are going to be mostly benefited.

To allay the apprehension made by the petitioners that the railway authority being one of the litigants in most of the cases before the Tribunal will get undue benefit by way of proposed shifting, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh submitted that the railway cannot get any advantage merely by providing the building infrastructure because the Members of the Tribunal are appointed in consultation with the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India. As such, the entire staff who are working at Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad have been provided by the Western Railway. Therefore, the apprehension of the petitioners is ill-founded. Learned counsel further referred to the Railway Board''s letter dated 07.04.1988 and submitted that the said letter clearly stipulates that the Railway Claims Tribunal should be located in suitable railway buildings and if there was any requirement for modification of the building, that could be done to suit the requirement of the Railway Claims Tribunal and if the railway accommodation was not available then only the General Managers are to hire the private accommodation. Therefore, now when the railway accommodation is available, there is no question of continuing the Tribunal in a rented premises.

Learned advocate further submitted that no fundamental right is breached as alleged by the Petitioners. As such, there is no discrimination among the advocates practicing at Railway Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel has referred to the representation submitted by some of the advocates who are practicing at Railway Claims Tribunal, which is produced at Annexure-R2 of the compilation, and submitted that large number of advocates are in support of shifting of the premises at the proposed site.

Learned advocate has submitted that following positive aspects of shifting the building shown in the affidavit-in-reply dated 22.11.2016 filed by the respondent No.2 are required to be considered:

Most of the cases in RCT are of the victims of the accident/untoward incidents claiming compensation under Section 124 and 124(a) of the Railways Act, 1989.

(II) The present building is situated on 2nd floor and 3rd floor. Whereas, the proposed building is on the ground floor.

(III) The communication to the claimants/victims is much easier as the proposed premises is situated near Railway Station and it is quite near to Central Bus Stand.

(IV) City Bus service is fully connected from Ahmedabad Railway Station to entire metropolitan area of Ahmedabad.

(V) Rickshaw and Taxi stands are nearby the proposed place of RCT.

(VI) Hotels and lodges are also available at cheaper rate near the railway station.

(VII) Most of the witnesses are from the railway staff, so they also could easily be present as and when they are summoned by the RCT and perhaps, that would save the transportation allowance and food expenses etc.

(VIII) The proposed RCT building would be secured because of presence of GRP and RPF staff.

(IX) Almost 99% of the staff working in RCT are on deputation from railway, therefore, that would save the time of railway employees in attending the duties from their quarters/railway quarters.

(X) Advocates appearing in RCT are also coming from Vadodara and other districts of Gujarat, as such, proposed building would be more suitable for them.

(XI) The distance between the present place of RCT and proposed place of RCT is only 6 kms. So, no disadvantage would be caused to any advocates.

(XII) One communication was made by CCO HQ WR to Additional Registrar RCT Principal Bench Delhi/RCT ADI giving all the details why shifting of RCT at Kalupur is in public interest.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the public interest would be protected if the Railway Claims Tribunal is shifted to proposed premises near Ahmedabad Railway Station.

Learned advocate further submitted that possibility of such large area was also explored near Maninagar Railway Station, Gandhigram Railway Station and Sabarmati Railway Station. However, at Maninagar, there is no space near railway station and if there is any space, it is in the railway colony where large number of officers and staff are placed which is again found not suitable. Gandhigram railway station is earmarked for Metro Railway and therefore at present no premises could be allocated for this purpose and lastly Sabarmati Railway Station is proposed for Model Railway Station and hence the premises could not be constructed or allocated. In these circumstances, the building which is offered is best premises which is suitable for functioning of Railway Claims Tribunal for long term basis. In fact the railway administration has no other premises to offer for Railway Claims Tribunal.

To rebut the contention raised by the petitioners that Judicial Member had earlier given negative report, whereas second opinion was completely in contrary to earlier one, learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh submitted that in fact on first occasion the Judicial Member had submitted a report to the Chairman of RCT without giving any opinion on her part. However, when opinion was sought by the Chairman, RCT, the learned Judicial Member personally visited the proposed premises, considered various representations and also considered the feasibilities which were reflected in the recommendation of the railway administration and then only offered the positive opinion.

Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh further submitted that number of Railway Claims Tribunal are functioning nearby or in the premises of some of the other railway stations and referred to the list given by way of affidavit dated 28.12.2016 filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the present petition be dismissed in larger public interest.

Learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India and Others v. Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta & Kannadigara & Others, reported in (2002) 10 SCC 226 in support of his contentions.

Learned advocate Mr.Kamlesh S. Kotai appearing for respondent Nos.6 to 12 has supported the submissions advanced by the learned advocate Mr. Ramnandan Singh. Learned counsel referred to the affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent Nos.6 to 12 and submitted that in number of cases the witnesses whose leg/legs are amputated are the witnesses before the Tribunal and therefore it is difficult for them to come to second floor where presently the Tribunal is functioning, whereas if the Tribunal is shifted at the proposed premises which is at ground floor, it would be more convenient for such injured witnesses. He, therefore, submitted that present petition be dismissed.

We have heard the arguments canvassed on behalf of the learned advocates appearing for the parties and we have also perused the material placed on record and the decisions on which the reliance is placed by the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

In the present petition, the question which is posed for our consideration is whether the decision of shifting of the Railway Claims Tribunal from Memnagar, Ahmedabad to Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad is proper or not?

While considering the aforesaid question, we have also to consider as to what is the scope of judicial review in interfering with the administrative decision taken by the respondent authorities.

The present petition is filed in the nature of public interest litigation by the Railway Claims Tribunal Advocates'' Association against the decision taken by the respondent authorities of shifting the Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench from Memnagar area of Ahmedabad to Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assailed such decision mainly on the ground that the Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur remains over-crowded on account of regular rail movement and therefore, it would be difficult for the litigants, lawyers and staff to access the Tribunal. All the roads approaching Ahmedabad Railway Station at Kalupur remains highly congested with traffic and is not easily accessible. Another reason for opposing the decision of the respondent authorities is that the decision affects the independence of judiciary inasmuch as the proposed place does not provide proper infrastructural and administrative support for setting up of the judicial body. Where the parent Ministry provides administrative support and the judicial body is set-up at the premises of the biggest litigant before the judicial body itself, then it may have its own influence on the judicial work and will also not inspire confidence in the litigants and the public at large. The other contention of the learned counsel is that the proposed place would not be sufficient to cope up with the large number of cases pending against the Railways and those which may arise in future.

In the case of R. Gandhi, President, Madras Bar Association (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed and held in para 120 as under:

"120. We may tabulate the corrections required to set right the defects in Parts I-B and I-C of the Act:

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) to (xi) xxx xxx xxx

(xii) The administrative support for all Tribunals should be from the Ministry of Law and Justice. Neither the Tribunals nor their members shall seek or be provided with facilities from the respective sponsoring or parent Ministries or Department concerned."

The submissions canvassed on behalf of the learned advocate appearing for the petitioners are required to be considered in view of the law laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope of judicial review while interfering with the administrative decision taken by the authorities. In the present case, we have to examine whether the decision taken by the respondent authority of shifting the Railway Claims Tribunal from Memnagar, Ahmedabad to Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad is reasonable or not? Whether the said decision is arbitrary or whether there is any legal mala fide in taking such decision?

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of M.P.Gangadharan & Anr. v. State of Kerala and Others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC 162, has observed in para 34 and 35 as under:

"34. The constitutional requirement for judging the question of reasonableness and fairness on the part of the statutory authority must be considered having regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case. It cannot be put in a straightjacket formula. It must be considered keeping in view, the doctrine of flexibility. Before an action is struck down, the court must be satisfied that a case has been made out for exercise of power of judicial review. We are not unmindful of the development of the law that from the doctrine of Wednesbury Unreasonableness, the court is leaning towards the doctrine of proportionality. But in a case of this nature, the doctrine of proportionality must also be applied having regard to the purport and object for which the Act was enacted. The Family Court, even according to Dr. Dhawan, requires special attention. It serves a social purpose. It is a social welfare legislation. The procedures required to be followed in the Family Court are different from the procedures which ordinarily are required to be followed. It must have sufficient space. It must have a counselling centre. The Family Court must house a room for the family counsellors. There has to be sufficient space for conciliation. The atmosphere in a Family Court should be different from an ordinary court. We are informed that by and large the existing state of affairs in the Family Courts situated in the State of Kerala is similar. Adequate facilities and infrastructure are not available. The State of Kerala is enjoined with a duty to establish Family Courts. It is imperative on its part to establish a Family Court where Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Act is attracted but a court can be established also in cases where Clause (b) thereof is attracted. While constituting a Family Court the State must provide for all requisite infrastructure so as to meet the objects for which the Family Courts are required to be established. A court should not be established only because it is provided for under the Act. The State must be alive to the situation that it has a duty to see that the dispute resolution fora are provided with adequate infrastructure.

If, according to the High Court, the present building is not suitable so as to meet the requirements of the litigants and because of it, it had taken the decision to shift the court to a better place, no fault can be found with the said decision only because the proposed site is situated at a distance of 12 kms. from the existing court building. We have been shown a map. From a perusal thereof, it appears that Malappuram is ideally situated geographically for having a court. It is the district headquarters. Number of cases from Malappuram is also more than the cases of Manjeri. The representations of the Bar Associations, although are relevant, cannot be the sole criterion. We have noticed hereinbefore that representations of the Malappuram Bar Association was not the only consideration which weighed with the High Court for making its recommendations. It may be true, as has been submitted by Dr. Dhawan that the State of Kerala in its counteraffidavit has categorically stated that the shift is temporary. As and when a proposed building is made available by the State, steps will be taken to shift the Family Court to that building. We have no doubt that the State would make an endeavour to make available an exclusive court complex for the Family Court and the High Court will then take steps to have the court located therein."

In the case of Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court observed and held in para 2, 3, 5 and 6 as under:

"2. The decision of the Central Government to locate the Headquarters of South Western Railways at Hubli instead of Bangalore was successfully impugned by the respondents before the High Court of Karntaka. It was the case of the respondents that once the Railways had decided to establish the Headquarters at Bangalore and spent public funds in putting up part of the establishment a subsequent decision of shifting the Headquarters to Hubli was bad in law.

The High Court came to the conclusion that this decision was vitiated on account of legal malafides as the appellants herein had decided to shift the Zonal Office from Bangalore to Hubli without any changed or compelling circumstances and without taking into account all relevant and material facts.

xxx xxx xxx

We do not find any basis for the High Court coming to the conclusion that the decision of the Union Cabinet was vitiated on account of legal malafides. Merely because an administrative decision has been taken to locate the Headquarters at Bangalore which decision is subsequently altered by the same authority, namely, the Union Cabinet, cannot lead one to the conclusion that there has been legal malafides. Why the Headquarters should be at Hubli and not at Bangalore, is not for the court to decide. There are various factors which have to be taken into consideration when a decision like this has to be arrived at. Assuming that the decision so taken is a political one, it cannot possibly give rise to a challenge on the ground of legal malafides. A political decision, if taken by a competent authority in accordance with law, cannot per se be regarded as mala fide. In any case, there is nothing on the record to show that the present decision was motivated by political consideration. The observation of the High Court that there has been a change in the decision because there was a change of the Governments and a different political party had come into power, is not supported by any basis. That the court will not interfere in questions of policy decision is clearly brought out by the following passage from a decision of this Court in Delhi Science Forum and Others vs. Union of India when at page 413, it was observed as follows: (SCC p.413, para 7)

"7. What has been said in respect of legislations is applicable even in respect of policies which have been adopted by Parliament. They cannot be tested in Court of Law. The courts cannot express their opinion as to whether at a particular juncture or under a particular situation prevailing in the country any such national policy should have been adopted or not. There may be views and views, opinions and opinions which may be shared and believed by citizens of the country including the representatives of the people in Parliament. But that has to be sorted out in Parliament which has to approve such policies. Privatisation is a fundamental concept underlying the questions about the power to make economic decisions. What should be the role of the State in the economic development of the nation? How the resources of the country shall be used? How the goals fixed shall be attained? What are to be the safeguards to prevent the abuse of the economic power? What is the mechanism of accountability to ensure that the decision regarding privatisation is in public interest? All these questions have to be answered by a vigilant Parliament. Courts have their limitations- because these issues rest with the policy-makers for the nation. No direction can be given or is expected from the courts unless while implementing such policies, there is violation or infringement of any of the constitutional or statutory provision. The new Telecom policy was placed before Parliament and it shall be deemed that Parliament has approved the same. This Court cannot review and examine as to whether the said policy should have been adopted. Of course, whether there is any legal or constitutional bar in adopting such policy can certainly be examined by the Court."

We further find that the High Court has issued a direction to the appellants herein to locate the Zonal Office of the Railways at Bangalore. Apart from the fact that in matters of policy the court will not interfere, such a direction could under no circumstances have been issued. If a case had been made out, and in this case no such case had been made out, that a decision to locate at Hubli was not in accordance with law, then the only direction which could have been issued by the court was to consider as to where the Headquarters should be located. It is not the function of the court to decide the location or the situs of the Headquarters, it is the function of the Government. On this ground also, the decision of the High Court is incorrect."

Relying upon the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Kannadapara Sanghatanegala Okkuta (supra), the Division Bench of High Court of Gauhati in the case of Taniang Kipa, S/O Kipa Kecha v. Union of India & Ors, has observed in para 16, 17 and 18 as under:

"16. When we apply the aforesaid law to the facts of the present case in hand, we find no merit in the challenge laid by the petitioner to the decision of the State in shifting of the construction of Airport on the new alternative site at Holongi.

In the first place, we cannot sit as an appellate court over the findings of the expert committee and find fault therein. Secondly: the petitioner was not able to point out any prima facie error in the expert committee''s report. Thirdly: no documents were filed by the petitioner to show any apparent error therein. In other words, the petitioner, could have filed another report to point out any error. He did not do so. Fourthly and apart from the three reasons, mere perusal of the report would go to show that the committee examined all relevant issues as to why the site now proposed is better than the earlier one. The committee, which consisted of experts from the Civil Aviation Ministry, was conscious of the work assigned. Fifthly: it seems clear by reading the report that new site in all respect, i.e. safety, convenience and cost factor is better than the previous one. Sixthly: merely because one site had been selected initially, would not mean that the State can never change its earlier decision when better option is available and when it is approved by a committee of experts. Seventhly: it being purely an administrative decision as held in the case of Union of India (supra), unless it involved some legal malafides or arbitrariness in the decision making, it is beyond challenge. Such was the case here because the petitioner was not able to point out any error in the decision making. Eighthly: since the petitioner did not challenge the main decision to set up the Airport but confined its challenge to its shifting from one place to another, it is not necessary for us to go into the basic question, namely, whether State was justified in taking a decision to set up an Airport or not. Even otherwise, such decision was beyond challenge because it is the need of the hour for every State to have its own Airport for the convenience of the public at large and lastly: we find that the facts in hand are similar in nature to the case of Union of India (supra).

In view of foregoing discussion, we hold that the decision to shift the setting up of the Airport at Hollongi deserves to be upheld."

In the case of Vachaspati Rayal Kanak Dhanai v. State of Uttarakhand & Anr., the High Court of Uttarakhand in similar type of case where the policy decision was taken to shift the Headquarter of District from one place to another, observed in para 15 as under:

"15. We must remind ourselves about the boundaries of our jurisdiction. While there has been considerable expansion of the Courts jurisdiction in the matter of policy, Courts would ordinarily adopt in public interest an attitude of hands off as the policy decision are best taken by those, who are charged with the duty and are equipped with the inputs to take an appropriate decision. The Courts would not sit in the judgment over the wisdom of a decision. The Courts are ordinarily concerned with the legality of the decision and what the Courts are more in particular concerned is the legality of the decision making process. There is a Government decision taken in 1987 to shift the offices from Narendra Nagar. There is, no doubt, that it is an order notified as per law. Then, there are subsequent developments, which we have adverted to. Still further, there is an announcement, but which was put the matter on hold for a long period of time. We would think that in the circumstances of this case, it will not be appropriate for us to grant the relief of restraining the respondents from shifting the offices as such. But at the same time, we would think that the interest of justice would be best subserved, if we direct the first respondent to consider the question of shifting the offices spread over a period of time. This we do, in view of the facts of this case, which we have already narrated. Thus, while we do not grant the relief of restraining the Government from shifting the offices, we only direct that the first respondent will consider the question of shifting the offices located at Narendra Nagar spreading it over a period of time in phases, having regard to the facts which have been referred to. The WPPIL No. 84/2016 is disposed of as above. As far as WPPIL No. 86/2016 is concerned, we do not see any reason to pass any other order. The writ petition will stand closed."

Keeping in mind the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Supreme Court and different High Courts, if the facts of the present case are carefully examined, it is revealed that while taking the decision of shifting the Railway Claims Tribunal from one place to another, the concerned authorities have considered the fact that most of the cases in Railway Claims Tribunal are of the victims of the accident/untoward incidents claiming compensation under the Railways Act. The claimants/litigants or the witnesses in number of cases are the persons whose leg/legs are amputated and therefore it is difficult for them to come to second floor where presently the Tribunal is functioning. The proposed new building is on the ground floor and therefore it is more convenient for such claimants/witnesses. The city bus service/rickshaw and taxi stands are near to the proposed place of the Tribunal. Moreover, the proposed new building of the Tribunal is spacious and more comfortable than the present building of the Tribunal. Most of the witnesses are from the railway staff, so they also could easily remain present as and when they are summoned by the Railway Claims Tribunal and perhaps, that would save the transportation allowance and food expenses etc. The proposed RCT building would be secured because of presence of GRP and RPF staff and almost 99% of the staff working in Railway Claims Tribunal are on deputation from railway, therefore, that would save the time of railway employees in attending the duties from their quarters/railway quarters. The respondent authorities have also taken into consideration the distance between the present place of Tribunal and the proposed place, which is about 06 kms, and therefore, no disadvantage would be caused to anybody. The authorities have also considered the communication made by the CCO Headquarter, Western Railways to Additional Registrar, Railway Claims Tribunal, Principal Bench, Delhi citing details for the shifting of the Tribunal at Kalupur on the ground of public interest. It is also borne out from the record that before taking the decision of shifting the Railway Claims Tribunal from present location to Kalupur Railway Station, the respondent authorities have also explored the possibility of shifting the said Tribunal at Maninagar Railway Station, Gandhigram Railway Station and Sabarmati Railway Station. However, at Maninagar, there is no space near railway station and if there is any space, it is in the railway colony where large number of officers and staff are placed. Therefore, it was found not suitable. So far as Gandhigram Railway Station is concerned, the same is earmarked for Metro Railway and therefore there is no premises which could be allocated for the purpose of establishment of Railway Claims Tribunal. Further, Sabarmati Railway Station is proposed for Model Railway Station and hence the premises of Railway Claims Tribunal could not be constructed or allocated at Sabarmati Railway Station.

It is further transpired from the record that the entire staff who are working at Railway Claims Tribunal, Ahmedabad have been provided by the Western Railway. That the petitioners have not questioned the appointment of such staff appointed by the Western Railway/respondent authorities. However, the only apprehension raised by the petitioner is that the railway authority being one of the litigants in most of the cases before the Tribunal will get undue benefit by way of proposed shifting. However, in our opinion such apprehension is without any basis as the members of the Tribunal are appointed in consultation with the Hon''ble the Chief Justice of Supreme Court of India. Moreover, it also appears from the record that number of Railway Claims Tribunal are functioning nearby or in the premises of some of the other railway stations.

It also emerges from the record that the decision was taken in the year 1988 that the Railway Claims Tribunal should be located in suitable railway buildings and if there was any requirement for modification of the building, that could be done to suit the requirement of the Railway Claims Tribunal and if the railway accommodation was not available then only the General Managers are to hire the private accommodation. Therefore, now when the railway accommodation is available at new place at Kalupur Railway Station, the decision is taken by the respondent authorities to shift the Railway Claims Tribunal from rented premises to its own premises.

The contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that at the first instance, the Judicial Member had given negative opinion, whereas, after approximately 2 months, the said decision was changed by the Judicial Member is devoid of any merits for the reason that from both the communications referred to by the learned counsel, it is revealed that the first report was submitted to the Chairman of RCT on the basis of the representation made by some of the advocates, without carrying out any inspection of the proposed site of the Tribunal. However, when the Judicial Member carried out personal inspection of the site, under the instructions of the Chairman, RCT, the same was found to be feasible. Thus, after considering the further representation and feasibility of the proposed site, the second positive opinion was given by the Judicial Member. Thus, in our opinion, the first negative report given by the Judicial Member would not render any assistance to the petitioners.

Thus, when the respondent authorities after considering various aspects, have taken the decision to shift the Railway Claims Tribunal from one place to another which is a better place, no fault can be found with the decision only because the proposed site is situated at a distance of 6 kms from the existing premises of the Tribunal.

Thus, in the facts of the present case, the decision taken by the respondent authorities is purely an administrative decision and unless it involved some legal mala fide or arbitrariness in the decision making process, it is beyond challenge. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any mala fide or arbitrariness in the decision making process. Thus, if the decision of shifting of Railway Claims Tribunal from one place to another is reasonable, fair and in the interest of the litigants and in overall public interest, such decision cannot be interfered with while exercising powers of judicial review by this Court. We must remind ourselves about the boundaries of our jurisdiction. While there has been considerable expansion of the Courts jurisdiction in the matter of policy, Courts would ordinarily adopt in public interest an attitude of hands off as the policy decision are best taken by those, who are charged with the duty and are equipped with the inputs to take an appropriate decision. The Courts would not sit in appeal over the wisdom of the decision taken by the State machinery.

Thus, in view of the aforesaid discussions, we do not find any merit in this petition hence it is dismissed. Notice discharged. Interim relief granted earlier is vacated. No order as to cost.