Back
PARTHA SARTHY
Ram Naresh Rai Son of Dhupan Rai – Appellant
Versus
Union of India through the Ministry of Railway, Eastern Central Railway, Sonpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Heard learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned senior counsel for the Railways.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant writ application for the following reliefs:
(ii) For direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner for holding stallage (TAHBAZARI), as the petitioner is the highest bidder and was allotted said tender, and has deposited earnest amount but without calling any show cause, the respondent authority’s has cancelled the deed of agreement.
(iii) For direction to the respondent authority’s not to disturb in peaceful possession of the petitioner for holding/and collecting rent, as the petitioner has licensee and invested huge amount but just after few months his agreement has been cancelled. (iv) For any other relief or
Cancellation of a valid contract without notice violates natural justice and constitutional rights; actions must be reasonable and lawful.
The court emphasized the principle that when a statute provides for a thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in that manner or not at all, and any other methods are barred.
The petitioner, as a commission vendor, has no legal right to assert that he can continue to act as a commission agent from the stall located at Platform no. 1 and to assail the decision of the respo....
The court ruled that a Commission Vendor has no inherent right to operate from a specific stall, emphasizing the principal-agent relationship and the public interest in maximizing revenue.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
