The petitioner planned to travel from Kodarma, Jharkhand, to Patna, Bihar, on July 6, 2017, with her husband and young child. Having reserved seats in the S-9 coach, she arrived at the station only to find the coach positioned unexpectedly at the front of the train, near the engine. The display board indicating the coach placements was non-functional, leaving her to navigate a chaotic boarding situation. As the train was scheduled to make a brief stop, the family rushed to board. In the ensuing scramble, the petitioner fell, and her husband was momentarily separated from them while trying to manage their luggage and child. Despite the confusion, they eventually managed to board the train thanks to the intervention of fellow passengers who pulled the emergency chain.

Dissatisfied with the lack of adequate response to her complaint, the petitioner approached the court. Her counsel emphasized that the Railways had a statutory obligation to ensure the safety and information accessibility for passengers. The Railways, represented by their counsel, contended that the petitioner had not taken appropriate precautions and should have consulted the enquiry office before the train’s arrival.

The court acknowledged the complexities involved in the writ jurisdiction but underscored the necessity for public authorities to adhere to legal standards. It recognized that while the case involved specific factual details, it also highlighted broader systemic issues.

The court's analysis revealed that the complaint filed by the petitioner was indeed valid. The Railways had a duty to maintain functional coach indicators and address passenger grievances with appropriate seriousness. However, the response provided to the petitioner was largely dismissive, lacking substantive engagement with her concerns.

The ruling referenced the doctrine of legitimate expectation, underscoring that passengers have a reasonable expectation for their complaints to be addressed thoroughly and transparently. This principle was pivotal in the court's decision to direct the senior officer of the concerned Railway Division to reevaluate the petitioner’s complaint and issue a detailed response.

Ultimately, the court mandated a re-examination of the complaint within four months, signaling the necessity for a more robust and responsive complaint resolution mechanism within the Railways. This case not only underscores individual rights in public transport but also emphasizes the broader obligation of public institutions to uphold safety and accountability. The ruling serves as a reminder that public authorities must operate with transparency and diligence to maintain the trust of the citizens they serve.