According to the railways, law and order on trains and at railway stations is a state subject and does not come under its purview. But a National Consumer Commission ruling in another case (Union of India versus Manoj H. Pathak) states: ``The complainant was entitled to be carried safely in the train up to its destination ... the railway administration neglected in checking the entry of unauthorised persons in the reserved railway compartment and then failed to remove them forcibly, for which they are duly empowered''.

On June 15, 1996 complainant Ravinder Raj, his wife Archana and daughter Ritu boarded the Mussouri Express at Delhi for Hardwar. When the train stopped at Ghaziabad, a 1,000-strong rampaging mob -- all reportedly supporters of BKU president Mahinder Singh Tikait -- got on and allegedly threatened passengers, all of whom had confirmed berths. The passengers said that they were hit with sticks and made to vacate their berths. The BKU supporters were on their way to a two-day Mahakumbh.

When some passengers protested and asked the men to talk to the ticket collector, they were allegedly told: ``The TTE cannot enter the coach. Where is the space? If he does, he will be killed. We are fully armed''. Another BKU supporter reportedly said: ``You have wasted your money in buying tickets. We are travelling free of cost. You might have got a reservation for a particular berth, where as we have reservation for the whole train. Shri Paswanji, our Railway minister, is our own man. We have our own Government. We have top priority to travel in the train.'' And through all this, the railway police and administration were absconding.

Raj first filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Delhi High Court which was heard by a division bench, comprising Justices Jaspal Singh and Manmohan Sarin on July 31, 1996.

The bench passed the following order: ``The matter relates to some inconvenience caused to the petitioner while travelling by Indian Railways. We will not like to interfere.'' The judges said that the matter lay within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

A complaint was filed before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum - II on June 11, 1997 against the Northern Railway general manager, Railway Board chairman, former Union railway minister Ram Vilas Paswan, and the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs.

Raj asked for compensation of Rs 25,000 each for his family. He has also asked the court to direct the railways to ensure that passengers with confirmed berths do not have to suffer like this again. The Home Ministry should also be directed to ensure the requisite travel arrangements before granting permission for such rallies, prayed the complainant.

However, the railway authorities told the court: ``The law and order in trains and at railway stations does not come under the purview of the railway administration, but is a state subject, for which only state govt can reply ... railway administration were required to run train services, but whenever there are unforeseen circumstances, it is not possible for railway administration to provide the required services''.

The case will next come up for hearing on December 3.