IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37562 of 2025 Subhadra Barik & Ors. …. Petitioners Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B.B. Mishra, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 28.01.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the aforesaid circumstances it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble court be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue notice to the opposite parties to file their show cause and if the opposite parties fail to file any show cause or file in sufficient cause the writ petition may be allowed and the Opp. Parties may be directed by writ of mandamus or by any other appropriate writ to pay Rs.8,00,000/-(Rupees eight Lakhs)only along with interest @ 10% per annum from the date of accident till the date of actual payment to the petitioners within a stipulated period, towards compensation for death of Subala Chandra Barik caused due to fault of Railway Administration and same be deposited before this Hon'ble Court for proper calculation and identification of the parties. p. 2 p. 2 And for this act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that since the deceased died because of the accident caused by the moving train in an unmanned level crossing in view of the decision of this Court so passed in various Writ Petitions, Petitioners are eligible and entitled to get the benefit of compensation. 4.1. It is contended that appropriate direction be issued to the Opposite Parties to pay the compensation so assessed and allowed by this Court in various Writ Petitions. Copies of orders passed by this Court so produced in Court be kept in record. 5. Mr. B.B. Mishra, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that the accident as contended has never occurred in unmanned level crossing and in fact the said accident occurred in the railway tack, as found from Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that since the accident never took place in an unmanned level crossing, decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 5.1. Learned Senior Panel Counsel in support of his submission relied on judgment dtd.19.04.2024 so passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.12405 of 2015 and batch. Placing reliance on the said judgment, it is contended p. 3 p. 3 that since the accident in question has not occurred in an unmanned level crossing, railway authorities are not liable to pay the compensation. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and the FIR available under Annexure-1, and the fact that no document is available showing the death of the deceased because of the train accident in an unmanned level crossing, this Court is of the view that the decisions relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners are not applicable. 6.1. In the alternate in view of the decision rendered by this Court in its judgment dtd.19.04.2024 in W.P.(C) No.12405 of 2015 and batch, Petitioners are not eligible to get the benefit of compensation as prayed for. Since there is no material placed showing the accident occurred in an unmanned level crossing, while not entertaining the Writ Petition, this Court grants liberty to the Petitioner to move the appropriate forum for grant of compensation, if any. 7. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat