Authority: High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi

Order Date: 15 October 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioner: Lalgarh Welfare Society, represented by President Kameshwar Singh (age ~72), filing PIL No. 613 of 2024 seeking a writ of mandamus for construction of a manned level crossing or Road Over Bridge (ROB) between Lalgarh Bihar and Rajhura (near Panjarikala village) on the RHR‑TRZ railway section.
  • Respondents: 1) State of Jharkhand (Chief Secretary), 2) Transport Commissioner, Jharkhand, 3) Deputy Commissioner, Palamau, 4) Divisional Manager, Rail, East Central Railway, Dhanbad, 5) Senior Divisional Engineer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
  • Counsel: Petitioner – Mr Baban Prasad; State – Mr Sahbaj Akhtar (AC to AAG‑III); Railways – Mr Abhijeet Kumar Singh (CGC).
  • Petitioner’s Allegations: Long‑standing safety hazard due to villagers’ unauthorized trespassing of the railway line; monsoon flooding makes existing crossing unsafe; school‑going children lack safe passage; petitioner argues that a ROB would be the optimal solution.
  • Railways’ Affidavit (paragraphs 6‑13):

1. Villagers have repeatedly demanded a manned level crossing or ROB.

2. Railways have made repeated representations to the State and Transport Commissioner for funding; no commitment received.

3. Existing Railway guidelines prohibit opening new level crossings and aim to eliminate existing ones by providing Limited Height Subways (LHS) or ROBs, based on site conditions.

4. Policy reference: Railway Board’s updated policy (letter no. 2017/CE‑IV/LX/Misc./244(LCs) Pt., dated 02‑03‑2023, para 2.1.3) allows ROB/LHS/FOB at Railway cost in exceptional cases where trespassing endangers safety.

5. The site does not meet eligibility for ROB (not on a National/State/District road and no industrial traffic).

6. Consequently, a Limited Height Subway (LHS) is being constructed at km 307/31‑308/01 between Lalgarh Bihar Railway Station and Panjarikala; construction has begun and is in progress.

7. No cost‑sharing agreement for ROB has been received from the State; therefore, no ROB work is underway.

  • Petitioner’s Counter‑Argument: LHS work is incomplete; the LHS is prone to flooding during monsoons, rendering it ineffective for school children and villagers; therefore, a ROB remains the preferred solution.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the petitioner had not established a legal right to compel the respondents via mandamus and that the Court lacks expertise to decide the technical choice between LHS and ROB.
  • The Court declined to issue the writ of mandamus for a ROB.
  • The Court directed respondents 4 and 5 (Railways) to complete the Limited Height Subway (LHS) at the specified location within four months from the order date (i.e., by 15 February 2027) and to ensure that the structure addresses flooding so that public funds are not wasted.
  • A compliance affidavit regarding the LHS completion must be filed by 12 March 2027, with an advance copy to the petitioner’s counsel.
  • The Registry is instructed to place the matter high on the board on 18 March 2027 to consider compliance.
  • No order for costs was made; the petition was disposed of with the limited directions.

Topics: Court Order, Railway Infrastructure, Public Safety