Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ and N.S. Dhanik, J. dismissed a petition being wholly misconceived, as the directions sought for were not within the realm of the Court.

In the present matter the petitioner required appropriate actions to be taken by the Court to interconnect Pantnagar Airport, Jolly Grant Airport and Indira Gandhi International Airport; and ensure proper air transport between them and the respondents to gear up the working of the proposed unserved airports in Uttarakhand, i.e. Chinyalisaur, Gaucher, Haridwar, Pithoragarh (Naini-Saini) & Uttarkashi.

The High Court opined that, “where an Airport should be established, how many flights should be run every day at these Airports, whether or not the Airport at Pantnagar should be connected with the Airports at Dehradun and Delhi and if so, in what manner; and whether or not such inter-connectivity of Airports are economically viable, are all matters of policy which lie exclusively in the executive realm”. Further, it held that “it would not undertake the exercise of monitoring establishment or operation of Airports in different parts of the State, or to prescribe the frequency of flights to and from these Airports, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India”.[Pankaj Miglani v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 242, Order dated 03-04-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. and N.S. Dhanik, J. allowed a petition seeking appropriate required actions to facilitate proper hygiene. However, denied to enter upon a matter in which the Court lacks the expertise to decide questions.

In the pertinent matter the petitioner, Pankaj Miglani, a practicing Advocate of the Court, sought for appropriate actions to facilitate proper hygiene and cleanliness in every coach in the trains departing from every station of the State and to provide premium class/executive class coaches in “Jan-Shatabdi”, running through the State of Uttarakhand. To that, a supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Railways highlighting the steps taken by them to improve hygiene.

The Court opined that Railways to have premium class/ executive class coaches is a matter of economic policy which falls in the ‘executive realm’ and thus the Court lacks expertise on the same. Moreover, a person who can afford a premium class/executive class can fight for their own cause and wouldn’t need to “agitate their fanciful grievances invoking the public interest jurisdiction of this Court”. However, an obligation to ensure the proper hygiene and cleanliness in every coach of the trains operating all over the country is a matter which lies in the public interest. And the Court further ordered to periodically monitor cleanliness and hygiene in all trains running within the State. And if the State fails to comply to follow the procedure then a writ may be filed again to that effect, 6 months later.[Pankaj Miglani v. Union of India, 2019 SCC OnLine Utt 242, Order dated 03-04-2019]