HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition No. 3258 of 2023 ( m/S)

Doon Taxi Owners Association, Taxi Stand,

Railway Station ….......Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others …..... Respondents

Present : Mr. I.P. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manoj Kumar, Central Government Standing Counsel for the

Union of India.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

This matter was finally heard today and the Court

proceeded to dictate the judgment. At that stage, it was revealed that the notice was required to be issued to the respondent no.3 on 30.11.2023, but notices have yet not been issued. Steps have not

been taken.

2. Let fresh notice be issued to the respondent no.3,

returnable within six weeks. Steps to be taken within a week.

3. In case, the petitioner fails to take steps, the petition

shall stand dismissed without reference to the Court.

4. Heard on Stay Application (IA No. 1 of 2023).

5. According to the petitioner, they are operating taxi services at Dehradun Railway Station since 1991; their Association was permitted to park minimum 05 taxies at a time on certain charges, but the respondent no.2/Divisional Railway Manager, DRM, Northern Railways, Moradabad Division, Moradabad (“the DRM”) granted a contract to the respondent no.3/M/S Raj Kumar for parking and under the garb of his parking contract the

respondent no.3 in connivance with the respondent no.2/the DRM, is trying to uproot the petitioner.

6. It is also the case of the petitioner that, in fact, in the year 2015, on the representation of the petitioner a joint inspection was carried out, which also recorded that parking space shall be provided for the taxies.

7. By way of the supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2023, in para 8, the petitioner has also recorded that they were allotted the parking space since 01.01.1985 by the railways. The document relating to license dated 01.01.1985, has also been filed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 would submit that in this matter, interim order may be vacated which was passed on 30.11.2023.

9. On 30.11.2023, this Court had noted the statement given on behalf of respondent no.1 and 2 that no coercive action shall be taken against the members of the petitioner.

10. Learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 would submit that the petitioner Association has no claim to challenge the parking contract given in favour of the respondent no.3/ M/S Raj Kumar.

11. Now, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 would submit that the railway authority proposes to take coercive steps against the petitioner’s Association.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the interim relief application may be kept pending and let the respondent no.3 come and place his arguments.

13. The petitioner claims that they were provided space for running taxi services from railway station. Now, a contract has been granted to the respondent no.3/ M/S Raj Kumar for parking. Under the garb of parking contract, the petitioner’s Association is being required to vacate the area.

14. Mainly, three documents have been referred to by the petitioner. The first document is Annexure No.3, a communication dated 17.10.2019, of the Station Master, Railways, which records that on 20.07.2015, the petitioner’s Association was provided parking space for 05 places. The second document is a Joint Inspection Report dated 20.07.2015, (Annexure No.6) which records that 05 vehicles be parked near prepaid booth at a time. In fact, Annexure No.6 (filed by the petitioner) does not record that petitioner’s Association was provided any space, as such. It may also be noted that based on Annexure No.6, Joint Inspection Report, the petitioner claims that they were provided space by communication dated 17.10.2019, which is Annexure No.3. In addition to it, surprisingly the petitioner has in its supplementary affidavit dated 28.11.2023, in para 8 recorded that they were provided parking space since 01.01.1985 and the copy of the agreement has been filed.

15. By m