SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CREATION OF SEVEN NEW RAILWAY ZONES
The Supreme Court
of India in its landmark judgement in Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 16838 of 2002 in Federation of Railway Officers Associations
& Others versus Union of India with SLP (Civil) No. 17306/2002
of March 13, 2003, has upheld the creation of seven new Railway
Zones at Hajipur, Jaipur, Hubli, Jabalpur, Bilaspur, Bhubaneswar
and Allahabad as legally and constitutionally valid and dismissed
petitions challenging the decision of the Government.
The apex court, in
this connection, quoted its earlier judgement in BALCO Employees
Union (Regd) Vs. Union of India and Others in 2002, wherein it
observed, "It is evident that it is neither within the
domain of the courts nor the scope of the judicial review to embark
upon an enquiry as to whether a particular public policy is wise
or whether better public policy can be evolved. No are our courts
inclined to strike down a policy at the behest of a petitioner
merely because it has been urged that a different policy would
have been fairer or wiser or more scientific or more logical"
and stated, "In examining a question of this nature
where a policy is evolved by the Government judicial review thereof
is limited. When policy according to which or the purpose for
which discretion is to be exercised is clearly expressed in the
statute, it cannot be said to be an unrestricted discretion. On
matters affecting policy and requiring technical expertise Court
would leave the matter for decision of those who are qualified
to address the issues. Unless the policy or action is inconsistent
with the Constitution and the laws or arbitrary or irrational
or abuse of the power, the Court will not interfere with such
matters".
The Supreme Court
further said, "It has been contended that the objective of
developing backward areas or to meet public demand new zones have
been formed and such a step will not be consistent with efficiency
in administration. These two factors are noticed not in isolation
but along with other criteria as to increase in traffic load and
accessibility. Therefore, the contention ignores all the factors
taken in consideration and is not tenable. Even otherwise, to
meet the demands for backward areas cannot by itself be consistent
with efficiency. When Railway is a public utility service it has
to take care of all areas 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. Such services can be appropriately extended if there
is an exclusive zone to cater to such areas. If more facilities
become available in those zones naturally efficiency would go
up.
Therefore, the
concept of "efficiency" should not be approached in
a doctrinaire or pedantic manner. Thus formation of zones in backward
areas for providing proper facilities and services will improve
the efficiency and not retard it. Merely setting up of new zone
in a backward area cannot be condemned only on the basis that
it is being formed in a backward area, particularly when it fulfils
other criterion to which we have already adverted". It
further added, "Even if we assume that there is force
in the material placed by the petitioners that by forming new
railway zones efficiency in the railway administration would not
enhance, the reasons given by the Government and material placed
by them in support of forming new railway zones is no less or
even more forceful. 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 wholesome rule
in regard to judicial interference in administrative decisions
is that if the Government takes into consideration all relevant
factors, eschew from considering irrelevant factors and act reasonably
within the parameters of the law, courts would keep off the same.
……."The question before the Court is whether formation of
zones is for efficient administration of Railways. On this aspect
we have considered the rival contentions including the material
placed before the Government of India and the criteria evolved
for formation of the zones. The test whether such formation
of zones is for the purpose of efficient administration of Railways
have been duly considered by the Government before taking decision
while such consideration was lacking in Muddappa’s case. Hence,
that decision cannot be of any assistance to appellant. We have
applied the principles set out in other decisions relied upon
by the appellant to the facts of the case in reaching our conclusion
in this matter".
The Supreme Court
further observed, …….."It is only in 1996 a decision was
taken by the Government for a zone at Hazipur. If formation of
a zone at Hazipur as its headquarters fulfils the norms set up
by the Government and there is enough statistical data in that
regard, it becomes difficult for us to state that the same is
malafide. Allegations regarding malafides cannot be vaguely
made and it must be specific and clear. In this contest, the concerned
Minister who is stated to be involved in the formation of new
Zone at Hazipur is not made a party who can meet the allegations."
….."It is not the function of the Court to decide the location
or the site of the Headquarters, it is the function of the Government."
"If benefit
of a zonal headquarters in a particular place is more suited than
any other place in zone it would not affect the ultimate efficient
functioning of the railway administration. Thus all contentions
of the petitioners stand rejected." "These petitions
stand dismissed."
The Division Bench
comprised Justices S. Rajendra Babu and G.P. Mathur.
