1. This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in constructing a boundary wall at Methodist Colony, near Begumpet Railway Station, Hyderabad, thereby blocking the long-standing pedestrian access across the railway tracks, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and consequently to direct the respondents to restore access or consider the representations submitted by the petitioners.

2. Heard Smt. Vellanki Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioners; Smt. PNV Mahalakshmi, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned Government Pleader for Revenue, for respondent No.4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners and nearly 1,000 women domestic workers residing in Matajinagar and Brahmanwadi, Begumpet, have been using the pedestrian access across the railway tracks near Begumpet Railway Station for more than three decades to reach their workplaces in Methodist Colony, Umanagar and Kundanbagh areas. She submits that the said access has been open, peaceful and uninterrupted for over 30 years, with the knowledge and tacit acquiescence of the railway authorities. She submits that the sudden construction of a boundary wall by respondent Nos.2 and 3, without notice, consultation or provision of an alternative route, has severely affected the livelihood of the petitioners, compelling them to take a longer route of nearly two kilometres and incur additional transportation expenses. She submits that several affected women workers have already lost employment or suffered reduction in income. She further submits that representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 were submitted to the authorities requesting restoration of regulated access or provision of an alternative arrangement, but no action has been taken so far.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for Central Government, on instructions, submits that the location in question falls on a busy railway section where approximately 100 trains pass daily in both directions at speeds up to 110 kmph. She submits that unauthorized crossing of railway tracks at non-designated places poses serious risk to human life and affects safe train operations. She submits that under the provisions of the Railways Act, 1989, trespassing and crossing at non-permitted locations is prohibited. She submits that the construction of the boundary wall on the subject premises is a bona fide safety measure undertaken in the interest of public safety and safe railway operations. She further submits that the said action of the respondent authorities is lawful, in accordance with safety norms, and intended to prevent accidents and loss of life.

5. This Court has considered the submissions made by learned counsel for both sides and perused the record.

6. The grievance of the petitioners primarily concerns the hardship caused due to closure of the pedestrian access through the subject premises and the alleged inaction of the respondents in considering their representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.02.2026. At the same time, the stand of the respondent authorities is that the construction of the boundary wall on the subject premises has been undertaken as a safety measure in view of heavy train movement and in compliance with statutory provisions.

7. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the rival contentions and having regard to the limited relief that can be granted at this stage, this Court is of the view that the ends of justice would be met by directing the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the aforesaid representations submitted by the petitioners.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing respondent authorities to consider the representations dated 23.01.2026 and 17.02.2026 submitted by the petitioners and pass appropriate orders thereon, in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.