HC Directs Railway to Consider the Issue on Closure of Pedestrian Route
According to the petitioners, the route had been open, peaceful, and uninterrupted for more than 30 years, with the knowledge of the railway authorities.
Hyderabad:The Telangana High Court has directed the South Central Railway to consider representations submitted by women domestic workers regarding the construction of a boundary wall at Methodist Colony near the Begumpet Railway station, which is allegedly blocking a long-standing pedestrian access route.
Justice Nagesh Bheemapaka of the High Court was dealing with a writ petition was filed by residents of Matajinagar and Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, who contended that nearly 1,000 women domestic workers had been using the pedestrian access across the railway tracks for over three decades to reach their workplaces in Methodist Colony, Umanagar, and Kundanbagh.
According to the petitioners, the route had been open, peaceful, and uninterrupted for more than 30 years, with the knowledge of the railway authorities. They argued that the sudden construction of the boundary wall, without notice or provision of an alternative route, was forcing them to take a detour of nearly two kilometres, resulting in additional transportation expenses and, in some cases, loss of employment or reduced income.
They submitted representations dated January 23 and February 17 this year to the authorities seeking restoration of regulated access or provision of an alternative arrangement. However, no action had been taken, prompting the filing of the writ petition.
Standing counsel for the railways submitted that the location in question lay on a busy railway section where approximately 100 trains pass daily at speeds reaching 110 kmph. It was argued that unauthorised crossing of railway tracks at non-designated locations poseed serious risks to human life and disrupts safe train operations.
The railways maintained that, under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, trespassing and crossing at non-permitted places was prohibited. The construction of the boundary wall, they contended, was a bona fide safety measure undertaken in the interest of public safety and to prevent accidents.
After hearing both sides and without expressing opinion on the merits of the rival contentions, the court directed the Railway authorities to consider the pending representations, within two weeks.
