The special train, which started from Chennai, was privately booked by a group for a religious function at Gujarat’s Palitana, informed Central Railway’s chief public relations officer Dr Shivraj Manaspure.

“Around 80 to 90 passengers from a coach complained of food poisoning between Solapur and Pune. They complained of nausea, loose motion and headache,” the railway official said.

A team of doctors attended to the sick passengers at Pune station and provided them treatment on board.

“The train departed after 50 minutes. The condition of all passengers was stable,” the official said.

He claimed that the food consumed by the passengers was not supplied by the Railways or Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).

“What is happening in Gujarat High Court?” the Supreme Court bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan said after it was informed of an order by the High Court on Saturday.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who was representing the Gujarat government, said Saturday’s order was passed only to fix a “clerical error”. “There was a clerical error in the previous order and that was fixed on Saturday. It was a misunderstanding,” he said, adding, “We as the state government will request the judge to recall the order,” NDTV reported.

The Supreme Court on Saturday flagged the delay by the high court in deciding the rape survivor’s petition, saying “valuable time” has been lost. The bench of Justice Nagarathna and Justice Bhuyan then said they would hear the matter today. The Supreme Court criticised the “lackadaisical attitude” of the High Court and issued notices to the Gujarat government and others, seeking their responses to the woman’s plea.

The counsel for the 25-year-old’s victim told the Supreme Court that she approached the court on August 7 and the matter was heard the next day. The High Court on August 8 directed that a medical board be formed to look into the status of the petitioner’s pregnancy and her health condition.

In its report, the medical college ruled that the pregnancy can be terminated. The Supreme Court noted that the report was taken on record by the High Court on August 11 but “strangely”, the matter was listed 12 days later, “losing sight of the fact that every day’s delay was crucial and of great significance having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case”.

“In such cases, there must be, not undue urgency, but at least a sense of urgency in such matters and not a lackadaisical attitude of treating it as any normal case and just adjourning it. We are sorry to say and make this remark,” the bench orally said.