M/S P.K. Shefi, vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 4291 AP

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

   HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE
                              &
           HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU

                     WRIT APPEAL No.592 of 2022
                  (Proceedings through Physical Mode)

M/s. P.K. Shefi, No.9/46, Honeydew Apartment,
Second Street, Kilpauk Garden, Kilpauk,
Chennai - 600 010, represented by its Proprietor
Mr. P.K. Shefi                                                ... Appellant

                                   Versus

Union of India, represented by General Manager,
South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad,
and others                                                  ... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant : Ms. Sridevi Jampani

Counsel for respondents : Mr. N. Harinath, Asst. Solicitor General

ORAL JUDGMENT

Dt: 19.07.2022

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

This writ appeal would call in question the interim order dated

15.07.2022 passed by the learned single Judge in I.A.No.1 of 2022 in

W.P.No.21036 of 2022 extending the time allowed to the writ petitioner

for vacating the premises by four days.

It is argued that the writ petitioner has preferred the writ petition

seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the proposed action of

the respondents in attempting to seal/seize the Cell Kitchen on Platform

No.6 and 7 of Vijayawada Railway Station allotted vide LOA

No.2006/IRCTC/Catg./CK/Vijayawada dated 03.01.2007 without

following the due process of law, as illegal and arbitrary; therefore, the 2 HCJ & DVSS,J W.A.No.592 of 2022

learned single Judge should have allowed interim relief during pendency

of the writ petition.

It seems, the writ petitioner was granted licence to operate Cell

Kitchen on Platform No.6 and 7 of Vijayawada Railway Station pursuant

to public auction/tender process by the respondent-IRCTC in the year

2007, for a period of 10 years. Once licence period is over, respondents

are likely to proceed to call fresh tenders and, in the process, the writ

petitioner apprehends that respondents may seal the Cell Kitchen.

Admittedly, the licence granted to the writ petitioner to operate

Cell Kitchen has come to an end. Therefore, the learned single Judge

was fully justified in not allowing more time to the writ petitioner. The

impugned order would reflect that the writ petition is posted today

before the learned single Judge in the motion list.

Considering the entire fact situation of the case, we are not

inclined to interfere with the interim order passed by the learned single

Judge.

The writ appeal deserves to be, and is hereby, dismissed. No

order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

            Sd/-                                        Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ                       D.V.S.S. SOMAYAJULU, J
MRR