A.B.CHAUDHARI, J. - (1.) RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for rival parties.
(2.) THE present writ petition is in the nature of Public Interest Litigation and was heard from time to time and various orders were also passed. It is seen that respondent no.7-Maharashtra State Road Development Corporation has constructed a Fly Over for catering the needs of the commuters of Itwari, Gandhibagh and Kamptee area on Mumbai-Calcutta railway track at Nagpur. There is a railway crossing passing below the Fly Over, which is being used for commuting on both the sides of the said Fly Over. The said Railway crossing is manually operated by four persons in shifts engaged by the Railways. After construction of the said Fly Over, the Railways took a stand that the said Railway crossing manually operated is no more needed and therefore they decided to close the same for ever. It is in this background, the present writ petition appears to have been filed. During the course of hearing our attention was invited to the Railway crossing and the map at page 41 of the writ petition, so also various photographs at page 109. The map and the photographs show that the Fly Over that was constructed does not solve any purpose for the commuters who have been commuting from the said railway crossing as the Fly Over commences right from Kamal Talkies and ends at Mehdibagh Road, Itwari. Thus the said railway crossing passing underneath at some portion of the Fly Over cannot be said to be a substitute for the commuters crossing the said railway crossing and the commuters cannot be expected to travel a long distance to either side of the Fly Over. Mr.Agrawal, learned counsel for the Railways, further pointed out to us construction of a subway and stair case from the photographs. Having seen the same on page 38, we are fully satisfied that the subway or stair case does not serve any purpose and the traffic of commuters from the railway crossing which has been in vogue for so many years cannot be discontinued by allowing the Railways to close down the railway crossing at Mehadibagh, Itwari. A proposal was made by the concerned DCP of the concerned department for providing a convenient way ramp by the railways as an alternative to the railway crossing or a railway underground bridge with sufficient height which would enable passage of Fire Brigade and other vehicles through the same. Mr. Agrawal Advocate, however, opposed the proposal and argued that since the Fly Over was constructed there is no need to construct the same and the railways are not agreeable to the proposal of ramp or railway underground bridge, as suggested by the State Government. As found earlier, we have carefully considered the matter and we found from the photographs and other evidence brought on record by way of affidavit that the railways cannot be allowed to close down the railway crossing, which has been in existence since many years and the people have been commuting particularly therefrom because even now there is no other alternate way, which would substitute the said railway crossing.
(3.) THE other aspect that was agitated in the present writ petition was regarding removal of encroachments. This Court passed various interim orders and monitored the activity of removal of encroachment etc. and by now it appears that the encroachment in respect of which complaints were made, have been removed. We, therefore, confirm all the interim orders made by us in this writ petition while disposing of the writ petition. Hence, we make the following order. Writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). There shall be no order as to costs.;