The court emphasized that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons, as per established legal principles.

( 1 ) THE petitioner is a graduate unemployed youth and a permanent resident of Durg District. He applied to the Railway Administration for grant of licence to function as Railway Travelling Service Agent. In response to his application, he was granted licence to function as Railway Travelling Service agent for a period of 3 years commencing from 3-12-1999 and ending 2-12-2002. Well before the expiry of term of licence. The petitioner made an application to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager for renewal of the licence for a further period of 3 years from 3-12-2002 to 2-12-2005. Then, came the impugned endorsement dated 26-11-2002 marked as Annexure P-1. It reads as follows :-

SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY

No com. TC/rtsa. 96/pt. II/02 ??????????? Office of the

Sr. Divisional Manager

Bllaspur Division 26-11-2002,

To

Sri Manoj Kumar.

Paras Complex.

Opp . SB1.

Gurudwara Road .

DURG (CG)

Reg. : Rail Travel Service Agent, Durg

Ref : 1) Your letter No. NIL dated NIL

2) this office letter of even no. dated 25-11-2002.

Dear sir.

With reference to the above, it is to inform you that your application for renewal of RTSA has been examined. As the Railway Administration has already called for fresh applications for awarding licence for RTSA at Durg. Your request cannot be considered for renewal of RTSA license after expiry of tenure/period. e. 2-12-2002.

Thanking you.

Yours sincerely,

Sd /-

Sr. Divl. Comml . Manager

? Bilaspur

Copy to. Chief Station manager, Durg for information & necessary action.

Copy to. Chief reservation Supervisor/Durg for information & necessary action.

Copy to. Chief commercial Inspector/Durg for information & necessary action.

Sd /-

Sr. Divl. Comml . Manager

?? Bilaspur .

The petitioner being aggrieved by the above endorsement issued by the Senior divisional Commercial Manager, the third respondent herein has preferred this writ petition for intervention of the Court.

( 2 ) I heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention to Rule 7 of the Rules made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, would contend that the third respondent ought to have renewed the licence as per the petitioner's request and the reason stated in the impugned endorsement not to renew the licence is totally irrelevant and could not be sustained in law. Learned senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents - Railway, per contra, would support the impugned endorsement.

( 3 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find an error apparent on the face of the impugned endorsement. The reason stated by the third respondent not to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner is totally irrelevant and extraneous to the decision-making in terms of Rule 7 of the rules. Rule 7 reads as follows :-

"7. Renewal of licence - A licence shall, unless the competent authority for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decides in any case be renewable for three years and shall be so renewable from time to time and the provisions of Rule 4 shall apply to the renewal of the licence as they apply to the grant thereof. "

The language employed in Rule 7 is plain, clear and unambiguous and it does not admit of more than one meaning. The only meaning of Rule 7 is that a licence had to be renewed for 3 years and shall be so renewable from time to time unless the competent authority, the third respondent in this case, for reasons to be recorded in writing otherwise decided not to renew the licence. It is not the case of the third respondent that on receipt of the application from the petitioner for renewal of licence, he applied his mind to the request of the petitioner and for some weighty and substantial grounds or reasons, he decided not to renew the licence and recorded reasons in that regard in writing. On the other hand, the impugned endorsement speaks for itself as to what the third respondent did aft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document