Back
2018 Supreme(Bom) 1900
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
S.S. SHINDE, K.K. SONAWANE, JJ.
Sau. Nirmala w/o Vijaykumar Thakur and Ors - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India, Through its Secretary and Ors - Respondent
Writ Petition No.11098, 11099 of 2018
Decided on : 20-12-2018
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr.G.K. NaikThigle Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr.S.B. Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General
Headnote:
Issuance of appropriate - Writ of Mandamus - Contemporary policy - Existing policy decision - Grant liberty to Petitioner - Transfer of license - Constitution of India 1950 - Article 226 - Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with consent of learned counsel appearing for parties - Both these Petitions under Art 226 of Constitution, have been filed with following substantive prayers - Rule may kindly be made absolute by issuance of appropriate Writ or any other order or direction in like nature thereby quashing and setting aside impugned order/notice issued by Respondent No4 - Rule may kindly be made absolute by issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in like nature to direct respondents to consider application of petitioner in accordance with contemporary policy - ” Issue raised in both these Petitions is same and similar and, therefore both these Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Judgment and order - Due to sad demise of husband of Petitioner, as per prevalent policy, application for transfer of these two licenses in favor of Petitioner came to be filed - Petitioner is running these two tea stalls on aforesaid stations - Without hearing Petitioner and without considering relevant provisions of transfer policy, application filed by Petitioner came to be turned down vide order –Held, Court do appreciate contentions of Petitioner that Petitioner may face hardship - While exercising writ jurisdiction, direction cannot be issued contrary to existing policy of Respondents - In that view of matter, Court are unable to persuade ourselves to grant any immediate relief to Petitioner - Court grant liberty to Petitioner to file comprehensive representative to concerned Respondents for renewal/ transfer of license in light of new policy of Respondents, of which reference has made herein above and reply filed by Respondents - In case such representation is made, Respondents to consider same in view of existing policy decision of Respondents, and if Petitioners claim is found to be genuine, Respondents may take appropriate decision in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, within three months from date of filing such representation/application by Petitioner - In light of above discussion, Court decline to interfere in impugned orders - Accordingly, both Writ Petitions are rejected -Rule stands discharged - Petition is rejected
S.S. SHINDE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. Both these Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, have been filed with following substantive prayers:
“(B) Rule may kindly be made absolute by issuance of appropriate Writ or any other order or direction in the like nature thereby quashing and setting aside the impugned order/notice dated 28.9.2018 issued by Respondent No.4.
(C) Rule may kindly be made absolute by issuance of writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the like nature to direct respondents to consider the application of the petitioner in accordance with the contemporary policy.”
3. The issue raised in both these Petitions is same and similar and, therefore both these Petitions are being disposed of by this Common Judgment and order.
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that, husband of the Petitioner was allotted with the tea stall license of Partur Railway Station, so also tea stall license for Selu Railway Station. Due to sad demise of husband of the Petitioner, as per the prevalent policy of 2010, the application for transfer of these two licenses in favour of Petitioner came to be filed. The Petitioner is running these two tea stalls on the aforesaid stations. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner has appropriate registration certificate under Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, issued by the authorities of South Central Railway. Without hearing the Petitioner and without considering the relevant provisions of transfer policy of 2010, application filed by the Petitioner on 17th May, 2013 came to be turned down vide order dated 8th August, 2014.
5. It is the case of the Petitioners that, being aggrieved by those impugned orders, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.475 of 2015 and Writ Petition No.476 of 2015. In the said Petitions, after hearing the parties on merits, this Court (S.S. SHINDE and V.L. ACHLIYA, JJ.), by order dated 8th March, 2016 quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 8th August, 2014 and application filed by the Petitioner for transfer and renewal was restored to its original file. Accordingly, the Petitioner on 29th March, 2016 appeared before the Respondent authorities and has also cleared the entire dues till the said date. It is the case of the Petitioner that application filed by the Petitioner in the year 2013, is governed by the relevant policy which was in existence in the year 2013. However, for no reasons the Respondents have kept the application of the petitioner pending for more than three years even after passing of the order by this Court. It demonstrates that the Respondent authorities have no regard for orders passed by this Court and the Respondents have willfully committed breach of the orders passed by this Court.
6. It is the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner being a widow, is without any support and is dependent upon the meager income. The Petitioner is deprived from the business of tea stalls on the two stations, namely Selu and Partur. These two stations are classified as “D” class Railway stations for the purposes of railway administration. The Petitioner is also required to take care of her son, who is taking education and is dependent upon the canteens for the livelihood of family. There are in all 16 families in addition to the family of the Petitioner, who are dependent on the canteens for their livelihood.
7. It is further case of the Petitioner that without considering all these aspects of the matter, on 30th September, 2018, in the midnight, the Petitioner is served with the notice, by affixing the same on the front portion of the tea stall, that, the application filed by the Petitioner is turned down, and as such the Petitioner is instructed to vacate the premises. Hence both these Petitions are filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned order/ notice dated 28th September, 2018.
