TARIQ JAVAID, J.---This writ petition has been filed for seeking direction against the respondents for construction of manned railway level crossing at Railway K.M.130/13-14 in track jurisdiction Kot Sultan-Samtia Railway Sub-Division Bhakkher situated at Kotla Haji Shah Tehsil and District Layyah.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has maintained that an unmanned level crossing is being used by a population of more than 10,000 people residing in the Qasba since last hundred years.
Due to the increase in population and vehicular traffic the railway level crossing if not manned it is likely to cause any accident. It is further contended that the petitioner has taken untiring efforts to get the manned railway level crossing sanctioned from the railway department which on the influence of certain persons in locality appears to be in jeopardy. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that vide order dated 19-2-2010 the D.C.O. Layyah requested the railways to construct the above said manned railway crossing, however on the influence of local MNA a meeting was convened by the D.C.O. on 15-3-2010 wherein it was decided that the D.C.O. had no objection if manned railway crossing was constructed at K.M. 131/6-7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the area at K.M 130/13-14 Kotla Haji Shah is a thickly populated Qasba and shifting of railway crossing about half a kilometer away shall be of no use for the residents of the locality as the same railway, level crossing is operative for more than hundred years. There is a pacca street about twenty feet wide and the flow of traffic as well as of pedestrians is such that if a manned railway crossing is not constructed, then any serious accident is imminent. It is further contended that with the help of local population the petitioner has managed to provide for the, financial assistance to the railways. An agreement has already been concluded and the work is about to start, which is being hampered due to the influence of the local MNA. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further Maintained that if the MNA is so interested to have the level crossing constructed at the place of his choice he is at liberty to make arrangements and provide for the financial assistance and get the same constructed, however any railway level crossing away from the street which is being used by the" traffic as well as the pedestrian including school children is not likely to help the residents of locality. Hence, the purpose for which the local residents had mobilized their resources shall be frustrated. It is also maintained that right across unmanned railway crossing at K.M.130/13-14 a Madrissa is situated where hundred of the students are getting education. Similarly, there are two Public High Schools having more than 1400 students and the Principal of the Schools have variously requested the authorities to provide for the manned railway crossing as more than 300 students cross the same at least twice a day. It is further contended that there is a Girls High School in the vicinity wherein more than 600 female students are getting education and they have to cross the level crossing at least twice a day. Apart from the students the flow of traffic is such that all the time vehicular traffic is crossing the railway line. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further maintained that work order has already been issued and the delay in execution of the same is likely to cause untoward incidence.
3. On the other hand, seventeen interveners have filed applications for becoming party to the petition and they have maintained that the railway level crossing at K.M.130/13-14 was not beneficial as it cannot be used for transportation of sugarcane which is a main crop, hence construction of a railway crossing at K.M. 131/6-7 is the only feasible site. Therefore according to the interveners the railway crossing must be constructed at the place of their choice. This application is seriously resisted by the learned counsel for the petitioner who maintains that none of the interveners is resident of locality. They are living away from the Qasba and have filed the application only to please a small section of society residing near K.M. 131/6-7. The contention of the learned counsel appearing on their behalf is that for construction of railway level crossing the best utility of the, same to be considered rather than convenience of the petitioner, who is allegedly residing across the proposed site of railway level crossing.
4. Without going into the question of mala tide raised by both the sides it appears that large section of population is already using a small passage since last number of years. Therefore, if the manned railway level crossing is not constructed at 130/1314 the fears of ensuring danger of accident cannot be allayed. The fact that number of Schools are just across the level crossing at the other end of the street and apart from the vehicular traffic more than 2000 students, male and female use the same street for crossing the railway lines to attend their Madrissa and respective 'Schools is not denied. The contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the manned railway level crossing is of no use for pedestrian is not acceptable as the very existence of manned railway crossing ensures to warn the arrival of trains. The object is to ensure safety of the pedestrians as well as vehicular traffic. The objection of the learned counsel for the interveners is unthinkable as the absence of manned railway level crossing in such thickly B populated area amounts to criminal negligence. At the same time it is observed that if the interveners are so interested in having manned railway level crossing for transport of their sugarcane crop, which is not admitted by the petitioners, as according to the petitioners there is an alternate road as well as a manned railway level crossing at K.M.134 which is near to the Sugar mills where the sugarcane is transported, the respondents may mobilize their resources for the construction of the same. They may approach the railway authorities for the feasibility as well as other arrangements and get the same sanctioned. However, large population of the Qasba cannot be exposed to risk of accidents by denying the facility of a manned railway level crossing. The argument to leave a level crossing unmanned in such a populated area is deplorable. With above observations, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to carry out the works without further loss of time in accordance with the sanctioned plan approved by the authorities and agreement concluded