Vasanthakumari.P.G vs Union Of India

Kerala High Court

Vasanthakumari.P.G vs Union Of India on 20 May, 2024

Author: P Gopinath

Bench: P Gopinath

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                PRESENT
                 THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPINATH P.
        MONDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MAY 2024 / 30TH VAISAKHA, 1946
                        WP(C) NO. 25577 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

            VASANTHAKUMARI.P.G., AGED:50 YEARS.
             W/O RAJAGOPALAN K.K., KATTUPARAYIL HOUSE,
            KARINILAM PO, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT
            BY ADV SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN


RESPONDENT/S:

    1       UNION OF INDIA
            REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
            SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN PO, CHENNAI-600003
    2       THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
            SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, TRIVANDRUM-
            694014
    3       THE STATION SUPERINTENDENT
            SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENGANNUR RAILWAY STATION,
            CHENGANNUR-686631
            BY ADVS.
            SRI.N.K.SUBRAMANIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
            S. BIJU


     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
20.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 25577 OF 2016                    2



                                 JUDGMENT

Petitioner is the licensee for running a Snacks and Travel Accessories Stall (TVC 40) in platform No.2 at Chengannur Railway station. The writ petition is filed stating that the respondents are taking hasty steps to terminate the license of the petitioner without any notice. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court challenging Ext.P2 communication through which the petitioner has been informed that no further extension of license can be granted to the petitioner and requiring her to close down her stall from midnight of 30.06.2016. It is seen from the records of the case that no interim orders have been granted in the writ petition.

2. The respondents had filed a statement through their Standing Counsel where it is stated as follows:-

''4. Undisputably the petitioner's tenure to operate the Snacks and Travel Accessoreis Stall (TVC 40) in platform No.2 at Chengannur Railway Station had expired way back in 2012. The petitioner was granted a further extension of three years, which has also expired. Thereafter, the petitioner was granted temporary extensions from time to time till the finalisation of the fresh tender that has been called, to award the operation WP(C) NO. 25577 OF 2016 3 of the stall to a new contractor.

5. The tendering process was commenced nearly a year back. Many persons had submitted their bids. The credential bid verification in respect of the said stall has been completed by the Tender Committee. 5 participants have been short listed. The price bid of the tender would be finalised by the 4th week of August, 2016 by the competent Authority and the Letter of Award will be issued to the successful bidder.

6. In the above circumstances, the respondents have instructed that they cannot permit the petitioner to operate the stall on ad-hoc basis as it may lead to unwarranted litigation. The petitioner has no legal right to demand to operate the Stall after the expiry of the contractual period. The petitioner cannot seek the benefit of orders/judgments passed by this Honourable court in similar matters, wherein it was directed that the Contractors be permitted to operate the Stalls until such time the Tender is finalised. In the case on hand, as the Tender proceeding has been finalised, the petitioner cannot be given the similar benefit. The allegation that Exhibit P2 is shocking and arbitrary is incorrect and denied by the respondents.'' Having considered the contentions taken in the writ petition and having perused the statement filed by the respondents, it is clear that the petitioner has no right to continue as a licensee of the Snacks and Travel Accessories Stall (TVC 40) in platform No.2 of Chengannur Railway station. In the circumstances set out in the statement filed on behalf of the WP(C) NO. 25577 OF 2016 4 respondents, there is no illegality, whatsoever, in Ext.P2 communication. The writ petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

GOPINATH P., JUDGE ajt WP(C) NO. 25577 OF 2016 5 APPENDIX OF WP(C) 25577/2016 PETITIONER EXHIBITS EXHIBIT:P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER ON RECEIPT OF THE LICENSE FEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1/4/16 TO 30/6/16 EXHIBIT:P2 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DT 30/6/16 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT