Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

    Writ Petition (Civil) No.68 of 2011

Anil Kumar Gupta                   ....Petitioner

 Versus

Union of India & Ors. ….Respondents

J U D G M E N T

Uday U. Lalit, J.

1. This petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India has been filed in

public interest by an Advocate practising in this Court highlighting an incident

that  occurred  on  01.02.  2011 near  Mohammadabad  Crossing  in  Shahjahanpur

Division in State of Uttar Pradesh.  The petitioner has prayed for directions, inter

alia, for finding out reasons for loss of lives, for assessment of damage to property

and  for  grant  of  compensation  or  financial  assistance  to  victims.  He  has  also

prayed for directions for laying down guidelines for necessary precautions and

care to be taken so that such tragedy is not repeated again.

Page 2

2

2. The incident highlighted in the petition was:-

a. In a recruitment drive aimed at filling up 416 posts of

Class  IV employees,  Indo  Tibetan  Border  Police  (ITBP, for

short)  had  called  candidates  from  eleven  States  at  its

headquarter located at Bareilly, a small town in Uttar Pradesh

on  1.2.2011.  The  aspiring  candidates  for  said  posts  were

required to remain present in person and submit their forms for

registration.   In  response  to  said  recruitment  drive,  aspirants

started arriving at Bareilly and by morning of 1.02.2011 more

than two lakh aspirants had arrived. The gathering was swelling

and  increasing  in  number.  The  officers  of  ITBP  found

themselves incapable of managing the situation because of such

large gathering and as such they suspended and postponed the

drive. b. The consequent  resentment  and shouting of  slogans  in

protest by aspirants  provoked the higher officers of  ITBP to

use lathi charge to push the crowd. This resulted in a chaotic

situation with some aspirants resorting to violence. The armed

police then had to use tear  gas shells to disperse the crowd.

Massive  disturbance  and  lawlessness  prevailed  all  over  the

Page 3

3

town causing law and order problem. Some buses were burnt

and damage was caused to public and private property. In the

backdrop  of  such  situation  the  crowd of  aspiring  candidates

rushed to rail and road terminals to return back to their homes.

c. Because of congestion and crowd in large members, the

train coaches were all jam packed. Hundreds of young men then

climbed atop Himgiri Express that was on its way to eastern

U.P. and Bihar from where large number of aspirants had come.

d. When  Himgiri  Express  left  Shahjahanpur  Railway

Station with hundreds of men on roof top and headed towards

Rosa town, an accident took place at Hathaurda Railway Over

Bridge  near  Mohammadabad crossing in  Shahajahanpur. The

Railway Over Bridge was not tall enough and the gap between

the roof of the coach and the bottom of the over bridge was

hardly three feet. The train was speeding fast and by the time

the young men on roof top saw the approaching bridge it was

too late. At least 14 young men were crushed there and then

with 20 others seriously injured having been hit by the Over

Bridge and fallen from roof top. At this time, some high tension

wire broke and fell  over the train as a result  of  which some

Page 4

4

received  electric  shocks.  Despite  this  mishap,  the  train

continued running for a while and it finally stopped some 3 kms

from the place of incident. e. The  roof  top  of  coaches  was  full  of  blood.  The  dead

bodies and injured were brought down.  People rushed back to

find out  those  who had fallen from the roof  top.   The train

driver, guard and other employees had run away from the spot. f. The incident  provoked those  young aspirants,  some of

whom  torched  two  coaches  of  the  train.  What  followed

thereafter was total chaos putting tremendous pressure on the

Administration in carrying out relief work and taking injured to

Hospitals for medical attention.  

3. With the aforesaid assertions this petition was filed on 7.2.2011. In the

meantime  Railway  Administration  had  ordered  an  enquiry.   By  interim

order  passed  by  this  Court  the  respondents  were  directed  to  submit  the

Report  pursuant  to  enquiry  instituted  by  them.   Consequently,  Enquiry

Report  dated  09.09.2011  by  Mr.  Raj  Kumar  Kardam,  Commissioner  of

Railway Safety, Northern Circle,  New Delhi  was placed on record.   The

record indicates that this Report was preceded by Prelimnary Report dated

23.02.2011.   The  relevant  portions  of  Chapter  7  of  the  Report  dated

09.09.2011 under heading “Discussion” are as under:-

Page 5

5

“Time of the accident

……As per  the  statement  of  loco  pilot,  assistant  loco pilot  and guard of  train  no.  12332 Dn Jammu Tawi-Howrah Himgiri Express, the train passed Shahjahanpur station at 16:23 hrs.  The  other  records  also  show  that  this  train  passed Shahjahanpur station at 16:23 hrs a few passengers travelling on the roofs of the coaches of this train got struck against the Public  Foot  Over  Bridge  located  at  LKO  (East)  end  in Shahjahanpur Yard near the end of the platform.

            7.2 Speed of the train at the time of accident:

Diesel loco No. 11133 WDM-3D LKO of train no. 12332 Dn Jammu Tawi-Howrah Himgiri Express was provided with Medha Speed Time Distance Recording System Type MRT 918. Analysis  of  speedometer  recording  of  his  loco  was  made CRSE/CHg/NR in his technical note on the accident. Copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-X.  As per the speed and time observations analysis done by CRSE/Chg./NR,  the speed of the train no. 12332 Dn at the time of passing under the public foot over the bridge located at LKO (East) end in Shahjahanpur Yard was assessed as 75kmph. A few passengers travelling on the roofs of the coaches of this train got struck against the Public Foot Over Bridge located at LKO (East) end in Shahjahanpur Yard near the end of the platform.

From the above, the speed of the train no. 12332 Dn at the time of accident is thus considered as 75 kmph.

7.3 Cause of the Accident:

From  the  particulars  of  injuries  suffered  by  the  roof travelers, it was observed that most of the persons injured had been hit in the upper portion of their heads. It was also evident that injuries were caused to passengers, who were traveling and sitting/standing  on  the  roof  of  the  coaches.  An  incident  of hitting of an obstruction resulting in such type of injuries to the

Page 6

6

roof  riders  could  be  caused,  in  all  probabilities  by  striking against the existing foot over bridge, road over bridge etc.

………………………………………

Evidence available reveals that before starting the trains, all possible efforts were made by the railway and civil officials to  get  the  roof  riders  come  down  from  roof.  Continuous announcements were made through public address system and loud  hailers.  ADRM,  Sr.  DSC/RPF,  SP/Railway  and  civil authorities  were  continuously  monitoring  the  situation. However the roof riders refused to come down from the roof top  of  the  coaches.  They  were  also  throwing  stones  on passengers and officials. Large number of “JYREENS” had also gathered at railway station and approached ADRM for help and protection. In this situation, possibilities of taking incidence a turn to communal violence were very much there, as this area is a communal sensitive area and has passed through communal violence very recently (March 2010 and August 2010). In view of above, the situation had become highly volatile and had the decision to move the train was not taken at that time by the railway;  the  violent  crowd  would  have  damaged  the  station property and trains on the platforms and could have resulted in stampede  and  unmanageable  situation  at  the  railway  station. DM/BE,  IG/BE,  DIG/BE,  SP/BE and other  Civil  and Police officials were themselves available at Bareilly station to watch and control the situation. They also insisted for the movement of the trains as quickly as possible and in whatever manner. The idea  was  to  disperse  the  crowd  as  early  as  possible.  The situation  was  even  being  watched  at  Rampur  station  by DM/Rampur and SP/Rampur who were themselves available at Rampur  station.  At  Rosa  station  also  ADM,  ASP, Co  were present themselves to control the situation.

……………………………………………………………

In  the  above  circumstances,  when  2332  Dn  Jammu Tawi-Howrah Himgiri Exp. Train running at a speed of 75kmph approached  the  Shahjahanpur  public  foot  over  bridge  at  km 1237.255 km with passengers travelling and sitting/standing on the roof of the coaches, few passengers sitting and traveling on

Page 7

7

the roofs of the coaches got struck against the Public Foot Over Bridge  situated  at  the  Lucknow (East)  end  of  Shahjahanpur railway station.

7.5.2 There was an infringement of 55 mm in the vertical clearance at the Public Foot Over Bridge, Shahjahapur as per the Indian Railways, Schedule of Dimensions, Revised, 2004. CE/P&D/NR prepared a technical note in this connection and a copy of the same is enclosed as Annexure-XIV. Details have been given in his letter No. 1-W/0/Accident/MB/Pt. IV dated 04.05.2011,  a  copy  of  which  is  enclosed  as  Annexure-XV. Northern Railway Administration has given his comments on item No. 2 of my immediate recommendations of Preliminary Report   vide   CSO/NR’s  letter  No. 10T/Spl./Occurrence/MB/2011   dated  20.06.2011  (Annexure XXVIII) and as per this railway has to take further action in removing/regularizing the infringements.

Railway must ensure that there are no infringements to any  of  the  dimensions  as  per  Indian  Railways,  Schedule  of Dimensions,  Revised,  2004  for  any  of  the  overhead  fixed structure like FOBs, ROBs etc. For this a special drive should be  launched  by  Railway  Administration  for removal/regularization of the infringements.

7.5.3 On  scrutiny  of  the  Steel  Structure  Register  of IOW/SPN and Bridge  Inspection  Register  for  ROB/FOBs of ADEN/SPN, it was seen that though the inspections were being carried out  regularly but the vertical  clearances from the rail level to this fixed structures like FOB, ROBs were not being measured  during  the  inspections  as  this  have  not  been prescribed in the Proforma available for recording the various parameters.  Clearance is  an important  item as these may get changed due to track renewals, change in ballast cushion or any other reason resulting into the rail level being raised and may infringe the Schedule of Dimensions. Therefore it is very much essential that proper record and upkeep of such an important item is kept. Railway Administration should issue a standard Proforma for Steel Structure Register and Bridge Inspection Register to be

Page 8

8

maintained for the inspection of ROB/FOBs which should also include the item of measurements to be taken for clearances.

7.6 Role of Railway officials and others:

No  railway  officials  were  found  to  be  responsible  for  the accident as such this aspect is not discussed in the Report. The  primary  responsibility  rests  with  those  persons  who travelled on the roofs of coaches in violation of Section 156 of the Indian Railways Act, 1989.”

4. In Chapter 8 titled “Conclusions” it was stated in the Report  as under:-

“8.1 Cause of the accident:

8.1.1 Having  carefully  considered  the  factual,  material and  circumstantial evidences available at my disposal, I have come  to  the  conclusion  that  unusual  occurrence  to  a  few passengers travelling on the roofs of the coaches of train no. 12332  Dn  Jammu  Tawi-Howrah  Himgiri  Express  at  km 1237.255  in  Shahjahanpur  Yard  between  Shahjahanpur  and Rosa  railway  stations  on  Moradabad-Shahjahanpur-Lucknow, Broad  Gauge,  Double  Line,  non-electrified  Section  of Moradabad  Division  of  Northern  Railway  on  1.02.2011 occurred due to a few passengers sitting and travelling on the roof  of  the  coaches  got  struck against  the  Public  Foot  Over Bridge  situated  at  the  Lucknow (East)  end  of  Shahjahanpur railway station.  

The  accident  is  classified  under  the  heading  of “FAILURE  OF  PERSONS  OTHER  THAN  RAILWAY STAFF”.

5.   In Chapter 9 titled  “Remarks and Recommendations” Paragraphs 9.2

and  9.3 of the Report were as under:- “9.2   Railway must ensure that there are no infringements to any  of  the  dimensions  as  per  Indian  Railways,  Schedule  of

Page 9

9

Dimensions,  Revised,  2004  for  any  of  the  overhead  fixed structures  like  FOBs,   ROBs,   etc.  For  this  a  special  drive should  be  launched  by  Railway  Administration  for removal/regularization of the infringements.

9.3    Railway Administration should issue a standard Proforma for steel structure register and bridge inspection register to be maintained for the inspection of ROB/FOBs which should also include the item of measurements to be taken for clearances.”

6. After hearing the counsel  and considering the aforesaid Report and other

documents  on record,  while  reserving the  matter  for  orders,  this  Court  passed

following order on 17.2.2016:-

“Arguments heard.  

Judgment reserved.  

Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents-Union  of  India  and Railways shall within three weeks from today file an additional affidavit  along  with  the  relevant  documents  indicating  the following:

(1) Names and particulars of the persons who died or were injured in the incident that took place on 1st February, 2011 involving Train No.12332  Dn.  Jammu  Tawi-Howarh  Himgiri  Express  in Shahjahanpur Yard.  

(2) Whether any ex-gratia payment has been made to the next of kin to those dead or to the persons who sustained injury, if so, the amount paid to them.

(3) The  steps  that  have  been  taken  by  the  Railways  to  remove infringement of Foot Over-Bridges (FOB) in Lucknow Division as set out in Annexure XXVIII/2 to Report dated 9th September, 2011 submitted  by  Mr. Raj  Kumar  Kardam,  Commissioner  of Railway Safety, in regard to the incident mentioned above.

Page 10

10

(4) Whether  the  Railways  are  aware  that  there  are  similar  other infringements,  FOB  or  ROB,  in  regard  to  the  other  railway divisions,  if  so,  whether any steps have been taken to identify such infringements and to rectify the same, in particular, whether the Railways have taken any steps in regard to Recommendation 9.2, made by the Commissioner of Railway Safety in the Report mentioned above. If no steps have been taken the reasons for the omission and the time-frame within which the Railways shall do the needful.

(5) The steps that have been taken or proposed to be taken by the Government to avoid situations like the one referred to in the writ petition where lakhs of people descended simultaneously in the town of Bareilly in connection with the proposed recruitment for I.T.B.P., in the matter of streamlining/rationalising the method of recruitments  and  procedures  to  avoid  the  unmanageably  large crowds who came to participate in such recruitment rallies.

(6) Circulars/orders/notifications,  if  any,  issued  to  regulate  such recruitment  process,  rallies  and  crowds  that  assemble  in connection with the same shall also be placed on record.  

Needful be done within a period of three weeks.”

7. In  compliance of the aforesaid Order dated 17.2.2016, an affidavit has been

filed by J.N.Meena, Div. Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Moradabad.

With regard to directions 1 to 4 above-named. The affidavit states that following

20 persons died as a result of the incident in question:-

“1. Deepak s/o Mohit, Age 22 years, R/o Village. Mohva Bujurg PS Choori Choora Distt. Gorakhpur. 2.  Ram  Asrey  S/o  Masaipal,  Age  20  years,  R/o  Khemapur Jansa, Varanasi.

Page 11

11

3.  Anil Kumar, S/o Sh. Ameer Chandr Bathora, Age 25 years, R/o Ps. Dhanapur Chandauli. 4.  Rahul Kumar, S/o Vedehi Saran, Age 25 years, R/o Hiroosa Ps Rohan Jhansi. 5. Sarvoday Kumar, S/o UdayKumar Singh, Age 20 years, R/o Village Bansekhan Tola Ps Aurangabad. 6. Shayam Sundar Yadav, S/o Bhola Nath Yadav, Age 26years, R/o Village Yuvrajpur PS. Shoej, Gajipur. 7. Sukh Ram, Age 30 years, R/o Unknown 8.  Arun  Kumar  Pandey,  S/o  Ram  Chandra  Pandey,  Age  20 years,  R/o  Village  Bhanhi  Pandeypurva,  P/S  Munshiganj Garuriganj Sultanpur. 9.  Sunil Kumar Yadav, S/o Ved Prakash Yadev, Age 22 years, R/o Laxhmanpur, P/S Choori Choora Gorakhpur. 10. Devendra, S/o Bhasol Singh, age 20 years, R/o Vill Lahara, P.S. Kotwali Dehat, Distt. Aita. 11.  Ram  Pravesh,  S/o  Ramaserey,  R/o  Mahuava  Ps.  Choori Choora, Gorakhpur. 12.  Ajay  Kumar,  S/o  Sukhraj,  R/o  Vill  Seepur  Rakva,  Post Raipur Rakwa P/S Choori Choora Gorakhpur. 13.  Ravi  Kher,  S/o  Prakash  Kher,  R/o  Singar  P.S  Gursaray Jhansh 14.  Shailesh,  S/o  Mithailal,  R/o  Maupur  Chota  Tola,  Choori Choora Gorakhpur. 15. Purushottam, S/o Gayalal Yadav, R/o Maupur Chota Tola P.s Choori Choora Gorakhpur. 16.  Angad Avdhesh Chauhan, S/o Jiut Chauhan R/o Maupur Chota Tola, P.S Choori Choora Gorakhpur. 17.   Rajiv  Jaiswal,  S/o  G.N.  Jaisural,  R/o  Devmoov  PS Gauribaja, Distt. Devariya. 18.  Satish Kumar, S/o Pawan Kumar, Age 24 years, R/o Village Mahuani, P/S Avtar Nagar Chhapra Bihar. 19.  Soun Kumar Gupta, S/o Bayag Bapu Prasad, Age 21 years, R/o Village Mahuani, P/S Avtar Nagar Distt. Chhapra Bihar. 20. Saleam Ansari, S/o Barkhu Ansari, R/o Village Aurai Kalan, P/S Bheampra, Distt. Baliya.”

Page 12

12

8. The  affidavit  further  stated  that  no  ex-gratia  payment  was  made  to  any

injured or relative of any person who died in the incident. As regards direction

No.3 regarding Lucknow Division it was stated:-

“Steps taken by Railways to remove infringement of Foot Over  Bridge  in  Lucknow  Division.  In  this  respect  it  is submitted that the action plan for the removal of infringement of  FOBs  in  Lucknow  Division  submitted  by  Sr.  DEV/C Northern Railways Lucknow vide letter no. DRM/LKO/Engg/ FOB/15 dated 29.02.2016 is annexed with this affidavit.”

A  tabular  chart  giving  details  regarding  required  clearances  and  actual

available clearances as well as the nature and extent of infringement in respect of

17 cases from Lucknow Division was also appended to the affidavit.

9.    With  respect  to  direction  No.  4  what  has  been  placed  on  record  are

communications  dated  17.03.2011 and  28.5.2012  which  were  issued  after  the

Preliminary Report dated 23.02.2011  and the  aforesaid Report dated 09.09.2011

respectively.  These communications quoted relevant paragraphs of the respective

Reports and stated that a special drive be undertaken.  We also have on record a

letter dated 04.03.2016 from Railway Board addressed to Chief Claim Officer,

Headquarter  Office,  New Delhi,  saying that  a special  drive was launched vide

letter  dated  17.03.2011.  What  happened  as  a  result  of  such  special  drive  has

however not been placed on record.  Nothing has been placed on record if similar

infringements are found present in Divisions other than Lucknow Division and if

Page 13

13

so what safety measures are undertaken or are to be undertaken and what is the

road map for removing such infringements.  It appears that despite Paragraph 9.2

of the Report dated 09.09.2011 no assessment of any kind has been undertaken in

Divisions other than Lucknow Division and consequently nothing has been placed

on record.

10. An affidavit has also been filed by Harendra Kumar, Senior Administrative

Officer, Directorate General, Indo Tibet Border Police Force, Ministry of Home

Affairs, Government of India dealing with Direction Nos.5 and 6.  In response to

Direction No.5 the affidavit states as under:

“Reply to  Direction No.5 - It  is  respectfully  submitted  that after this incident the respondent/ITBP has not conducted open rally based recruitments.  The candidates are now being called for physical efficiency test and physical standard test by post only under the supervision of a Nodal Officer in a limited and controlled manner.  State administrative authorities at  district and higher levels are being informed well in advance regarding, the  time  venue,  date  and  timing  of  recruitments  and  are requested to ensure adequate arrangements to maintain law and order  outside  the  ITBP  recruitment  venues.   The  Presiding Officers  of  recruitment  boards  and Nodal  Officer  have  been directed to maintain close liaison with district administration.  A provision has been made in the Standard Operating Procedure of the recruitment that not more than 600 candidates will  be called at one recruitment center at a time for recruitment test of physical efficiency test and physical standard test etc.  In the case of Constable (Tradesmen) recruitment, 600 candidates are being called in two days cycle at each centre.”

Page 14

14

11. As regards Direction No.6, the Affidavit goes on to state that Standing Order

No.1  of  2011  dated  14.02.2011  and  Standing  Order  No.5  of  2013  dated

26.02.2013  were  issued  ensuring that  only  600  candidates  would  hereafter  be

called in one cycle on a particular day.  To similar effect is the Standing Order

dated 26.02.2013.  However these Standing Orders pertain to ITBP alone and it is

not  clear  whether  similar  Standing  Orders  are  issued  and  are  in  operation  as

regards other Central Police Organisations.

12. The  Report  dated  09.09.2011  indicates  that  requests  were  made  by  the

Railway and Civil Officials to get the roof riders come down from the roof and

announcements were made in that behalf.  Though the roof riders refused to come

down, in view of the volatile situation, a decision was taken to move the train out

of Bareilly.  According to the Report, the civil and police officials insisted for the

movement of the train as quickly as possible with an idea to disperse the crowd.

One may accept this as a reasonable and proper exercise as the crowd had to be

dispersed which had congregated in Bareilly.  However, this does not explain and

justify further movement of the train for more than 60 KMs from Bareilly Station.

What is more worrisome is that the fact that train was running at a speed of 75

kilometers per hour.

Page 15

15

13.    Those who were in charge of Railway Administration in the concerned

Divisions  ought  to  have  taken  sufficient  precaution.   The  Administration  can

certainly  be  taken  to  be  aware  of  the  fact  that  the  Foot-Over  Bridges  or  any

structures on the way could possibly be a hindrance and could have caused such

incident with people in large number on roof top. The Administration alone would

be in  a  position  to  know about  the  existence  of  infringements  with  regard  to

certain structures and what could be possible implications if the train were to run

at a great speed with large number of people on roof top.  Reasonable care would

naturally be expected of those incharge of the Administration.  We therefore do

not agree with the conclusion in the Report that Railway Administration was not

responsible.   

14.   In  Chairman, Railway Board  v.  Chandrima Das1,  while considering the

liability  of  Railways  when  some  of  the  employees  had  taken  a  lady  from

Bangladesh to Rail Yatri Niwas and  subjected her to rape, it was observed by this

Court,  

“42. Running  of  the  Railways  is  a  commercial  activity. Establishing  the  Yatri  Niwas  at  various  railway  stations  to provide  lodging  and  boarding  facilities  to  passengers  on payment of charges is a part of the commercial activity of the Union  of  India  and this  activity  cannot  be  equated  with  the exercise of sovereign power. The employees of the Union of India who are deputed to run the Railways and to manage the

1  (2000) 2 SCC 465

Page 16

16

establishment,  including  the  railway  stations  and  the  Yatri Niwas, are essential components of the government machinery which  carries  on  the  commercial  activity.  If  any  of  such employees commits an act of tort, the Union Government, of which  they  are  the  employees,  can,  subject  to  other  legal requirements  being  satisfied,  be  held  vicariously  liable  in damages to the person wronged by those employees.”

15. In  M.S. Grewal  v. Deep Chand Sood2 this Court considered the concept,

“Duty of care” in a fact situation where teachers who had accompanied school

children for a picnic on the bank of a river when the mishap happened and stated

as under:-

“16. Duty of care varies from situation to situation — whereas it would be the duty of the teacher to supervise the children in the playground but the supervision,  as the children leave the school,  may not be required in the same degree as is  in the playfield.  While  it  is  true  that  if  the  students  are  taken  to another school building for participation in certain games, it is sufficient exercise of diligence to know that the premises are otherwise safe and secure but undoubtedly if the students are taken out to a playground near a river for fun and a swim, the degree of care required stands at a much higher degree and no deviation therefrom can be had on any count whatsoever. Mere satisfaction that the river is otherwise safe for a swim by reason of popular  sayings will  not  be a sufficient  compliance.  As a matter of fact the degree of care required to be taken, especially against the minor children, stands at a much higher level than adults: children need much stricter care.

……………………

“23. Turning attention,  however, on to the issue of  vicarious liability, one redeeming feature that ought to be noticed at this

2  (2001) 8 SCC 151

Page 17

17

juncture is that to escort the children was the duty assigned to the two teachers and till such time thus the period of escorting stands over, one cannot but  ascribe it  to be in the course of employment — the two teachers were assigned to escort  the students:  the  reason  obviously  being  — the  children  should otherwise be safe and secure and it is the act of utter negligence of  the  two  teachers  which  has  resulted  in  this  unfortunate tragedy and thus it is no gainsaying that the teachers were on their own frolic and the School had done all that was possible to be done in the matter — safety of the children obviously was of prime concern so far as the school authorities are concerned and till such time the children returned to school, safe and secure after  the  picnic,  the  course  of  employment,  in  our  view continued and thus resultantly, the liability of the School.

16. In Chandrima Das (supra) compensation of Rs.10 lakhs as awared by the

High Court  was upheld while in M.S. Grewal (supra) this Court  sustained the

order awarding compensation of Rs.5 lakhs in case of death.

17.  In the backdrop of the aforesaid precedents, in our view, it must be expected

of the persons concerned to be aware of the inherent danger in allowing the train

to run with such speed having large number of persons travelling on roof top.

Though the people who travelled on roof top also contributed to the mishap, the

Railway Administration, in our view, was not free from blame.  Concluding so, we

direct  that  the  next  of  kin  of  those  who  died  in  the  incident  and  those  who

sustained  injuries  must  be  duly  compensated  by  the  Railway  Administration.

Those who died were obviously very young in age for they had come to compete

Page 18

18

for  the  jobs.   Taking  all  these  factors  in  consideration  we  direct  Railway

Administration to pay:

(a) Compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the next of kin in case of

every death;

(b) Compensation of Rs.1.5 lakhs in every case of permanent

disability suffered by anyone in the incident;

(c) Compensation of Rs.75,000/- in case of  any grievous injury

suffered by anyone; and

(d)  Compensation  of  Rs.25,000/-  in  case  of  simple  injury

suffered by anyone.

18. It is distressing  that despite Paragraph No.9.2 of the Report,  the Railway

Administration  has  not  considered  collecting  data  in  Divisions  other  than

Lucknow  Division  whether  there  are  any  infringements  as  per  Schedule  of

Dimensions  stated  in  said  Paragraph  9.2.   The  Administration  must  take

every  care so that such  tragedy is not repeated.  The first step in that behalf is to

have an assessment if any such infringements exist and then to create a road-map

to remove such infringements.  We, therefore, direct the Railway Administration

to  implement  directions  stated  in  Paragraph  No.9.2  of  the  Report  dated

09.09.2011.  The Committee headed by a senior officer and assisted by at least

three persons from the administration having technical knowledge and expertise

Page 19

19

be constituted to have an assessment of all such infringements and to chalk out an

action plan to remove such infringements.  It is possible that in some cases road

over  bridges  may  have  been  built  by  State  Governments,  Municipal

Administrations or such bodies.  Nonetheless, the action plan must contemplate

ways and means to deal with and remove such infringements.  We direct that the

Committee as aforesaid be constituted within a period of four weeks from the date

of this order.  We hope and trust that the Committee shall take appropriate steps in

collecting data as stated above and creating road map or action plan to remove

such infringements, in the shortest possible time.

19 As regards the infringements pointed in Lucknow Division,  the aforesaid

Committee  shall  take  immediate  steps.   If  the  clearances  are  specified  and

stipulated in Schedule of Dimensions Rules, 2004 the Committee may do well to

ensure  strict  compliance.   Every  dispensation  sought,  may  be  considered

threadbare and be granted only as a last resort.

20. We direct the Committee to complete the work as early as possible so that all

infringements could be removed in shortest possible time and, in any case, not

later than two years.  We direct the Committee to file periodic status Reports every

six months in this Court.   

Page 20

20

21. We also  direct  that  copies  of  this  Order  be  sent  by  the  Registry  to  the

Minister,  Railways  and  Secretary,  Railways  who  are  requested  to  ensure

compliance of the directions as aforesaid.

22.   Further, all Central Police Organisations must issue guidelines or Standing

Order akin to Standing Orders Nos. 1 of 2011 and 5 of 2013 of ITBP  ensuring

that only 600 candidates or such number of candidates as could easily be managed

or taken care of  be called in one cycle on a particular day.  For compliance in that

behalf, a copy of this Order be sent by the Registry to the Secretary, Ministry of

Home Affairs.

23. With these directions, the petition stands disposed of.

                                                         …..…………………………..CJI

     (T.S. Thakur)

                                                                                  ...………………………………J.

                (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, July 05, 2016