Manmohan Sarin, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking, inter alia, a declaration that Section 142 and 143 of the Railways Act, 1989 is ultra vires of the Constitution of India. However, during the course of submissions, petitioner has not pressed his prayer and has confined his prayer in the writ petition for quashing of the orders dated 7th July, 2000, 13th September, 2000 and 18th June, 2001 which are annexed with the writ petition as annexure-J Colly. and annexure-L by which the petitioner”s prayer for renewal of the licence granted under the Authorisation of Railway Travellers” Service Agents Rules, 1985 was declined.

2. The facts are in a narrow compass and may be briefly noted as under: Petitioner had applied for a grant of licence in January, 1997, under the aforesaid Rules. Petitioner was duly granted licence on 06.01.1997 which was to expire on 5th January, 2000. As required the petitioner applied for renewal of licence on 28.09.1999. It is urged that renewal of the licence was to be granted as a matter of course. Only for non-renewal reasons were to be recorded as per Rule 7 which is reproduced below for facility of reference: “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.”

3. Petitioner had applied for renewal of licence on 28.09.1999. The said application did not find favour and was rejected on 13th March, 2000 by Chief Commercial Manager with the following intimation to respondent: “Your request for renewal of RTSA license has been regretted by the competent authority due to poor performance. You are, therefore, advised to please surrender the identity card and licence in original to this office immediately. However, this is without prejudice.”

4. Itis the petitioner”s case that he protested against the said rejection dated 13.03.2000 and sent number of communications by way of appeals/representations. However, the same did not find favour and the same were rejected finally vide communication dated 19.5.2000. Petitioner preferred another appeal for reconsideration of the aforesaid order passed stressing upon his unemployment and having old parents to look after. Petitioner also claimed blemishless service. The said appeal was also rejected by the Competent Authority on 7th July, 2000.

5. The saga of making representations continued unabated with the authorities rejecting all such requests for renewal. Aggrieved with the rejection of these appeals, petitioner filed writ petition being WP(C) No.6101/2001 before this Court wherein respondents took a preliminary objection that an appeal under the Rules before the General Manager of the Zonal Railways had not been preferred by the petitioner as such contended that writ petition was not maintainable. The said writ petition was disposed of on 04.03.2002 with direction that appeal, if any, preferred by petitioner under Rule 9 of the Authorisation of Railway Travellers” Service Agents Rules, 1985 will be decided within five weeks from the date of appeal.

6. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, Northern Railway wherein opportunity of hearing was given and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 03.05.2002. Petitioner was, therefore, asked to surrender the licence, hence this writ petition.

7. The writ petition came up before the court on 22nd May, 2002 when notice to show cause as to why Rule Nisi be not issued in the matter. Petitioner”s application for interim relief was dismissed.

8. During the course of proceedings petitioner amended the petition by giving certain additional facts. Respondents were given opportunities to file counter affidavit. However, respondent did not file the same. Ultimately on 17.07.2006, last opportunity was given to res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document