IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that policy decisions made by the Railway Administration regarding the relocation of catering stalls for public safety and decongestion are valid and not subject to judicial interference unless there is clear evidence of arbitrariness or violation of fundamental rights.

JUDGMENT

Sandeep V. Marne, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel appearing for parties, the Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal.

2. Petitioner, an allottee of a Catering Stall on Platform at Dadar Railway Station, Mumbai is aggrieved by Orders/Notices dated 9 February 2024, 29 February 2024, 10 April 2024, 19 April 2024 and 9 May 2024 directing her to shift her catering stall at the suggested location on the same platform.

3. Petitioner has been operating s Catering Stall admeasuring area of 60 sq.ft, which is currently located at a distance of 38 ft from the footover bridge on platform nos. 9 and 10 (old platform nos.3 and 4) at Dadar Railway Station, Central Railway. According to Petitioner, the Stall has been allotted to her in the year 2007 after prolonged litigation up to the Apex Court.

4. It appears that a Member of Parliament wrote letter dated 3 August 2022 to the General Manager, Central Railway, copy of which is not available on record. However, by referring to the said letter, a Feasibility Report was prepared by various railway ofcials on 7 November 2022, under which Petitioner agreed for shifting of her catering stall on the same Platform towards Kurla-pend under the escalator/Pillar No.C-20 or opposite 8 x 344 and 8 x 346. Petitioner agreed for such relocation and signed the Feasibility Report dated 7 November 2022. However, according to Petitioner, no action was taken on the Feasibility Report. Instead, order dated 09 February 2024 was issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (Works) CSMT, Mumbai directing relocation of 8 stalls at Dadar Railway Station. By that order, Petitioner's stall has been directed to be relocated on Platform Nos. 9/10 (old Platform Nos. 3/4) beyond E.M.U. Halt at CSMT end in same size of 60 sq.ft. Petitioner protested against the move by letter dated 10 February 2024. However, after considering her representation by letter dated 29 February 2024, the Railways again advised Petitioner to shift the Stall. A reminder dated 10 April 2024 was issued to the Station Manager, Dadar Station. Petitioner submitted one more letter dated 1 April 2024 and instead of accepting her request, the Railway Administration once again advised her to shift the Stall at suggested site vide letter dated 19 April 2024. A Final Notice dated 9 May 2024 was issued to Petitioner threatening her with suspension of license in the event of failure to relocate the Stall by 20 May 2024. Aggrieved by the above orders and communications, Petitioner has fled the present petition.

5. We have heard Mr. Mayur Khandeparkar the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. At the outset he would submit that Petitioner is principally not against the decision of the Railway Administration to shift the current location of the Stall. He would however submit that the decision, to the limited extent of location decided by Respondents, would warrant interference by this Court. He would raise following three principal objections to the forcible relocation of Petitioner's Stall.

(i) Firstly, he would submit that the impugned orders indicate complete ignorance of Feasibility Report dated 7 November 2022, which was prepared by the local railway ofcials, including the Station Manager, Dadar, who are well versed with the situation at the ground level. That therefore the impugned orders sufer from the vice of non-application of mind.

(ii) Secondly, Mr. Khandeparkar would submit that relocation of the Stall at the suggested site would afect livelihood of the Petitioner. He would invite our attention to a Sketch produced at page-64 of the paper-book to demonstrate that the proposed site chosen by the Railway administration is beyond the E.M.U. Halt, which would virtually mean that Petitioner would have no customers visiting her Stall. That Petitioner sells Tea, Coffee, other beverages and small snack items and that relocation of her stall beyond E.M.U. Halts would completely throw her out