Rajiv Dutt Sharma vs Union Of India Through The ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 4523 Bom

            Digitally signed
Jitendra    by Jitendra S.
            Nijasure
S.          Date:
Nijasure    2021.03.15
            18:10:01 +0530
                                                                    34-wp-12-2021.doc

      jsn

                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.12 OF 2021

               Rajiv D. Sharma                                    ...Petitioner

                         Versus

               Union of India & Ors.                              ...Respondents
                                                 ----------
               Mr. V.A. Nagrani i/b. Mr. Ramakant Patil for the Petitioner.
               Mr. T.J. Pandian with T.C. Subramanian for Respondents.
                                                 ----------

                                                 CORAM :        K.K. TATED &
                                                                R.I. CHAGLA, JJ.
                                                 DATE         : 11TH MARCH, 2021

               ORDER :

1. Heard learned Counsel for parties.

2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith.

3. By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, the Petitioner is challenging the order dated 28th July,

2020 and 6th November, 2020 passed by the Director

Establishment (General), Railway Board rejecting the

Petitioner's application for retention of railway quarter H - 23,

Badhwar Park, Mumbai for 59 days.

34-wp-12-2021.doc

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that by

reading of order dated 6th November, 2020 shows that the

Respondent rejected the same only on the ground that the

individual cases cannot be considered by the Railway Board. He

submits that the Respondent - Board earlier decided the

individual cases on their application. To that effect he relied on

the order dated 24th November, 2020 Exhibit G page 35 and

order dated 8th June 2018 Exhibit H page 36. He further

submits that there is clear cut discrimination between the

parties. Hence, the said order is required to be set aside with

direction to the Respondent Board to decide this application on

its own merits.

5. On the other hand, learned Counsel for Respondent -

Board vehemently opposed the Writ Petition. He submits that

in view of the circular dated 16th March, 2004 issued by the

Railway Board on the basis of the judgment of the Delhi High

Court in CWP No.5057 of 1999, they decided not to consider the

applications from individual persons. Therefore, there is no

question of entertaining the present Writ Petition.

6. When this Court pointed out to the learned Counsel for

Respondent that even after 16th March, 2004 the date of

34-wp-12-2021.doc

circular, the Respondent - Board decided the application fled

by the individual persons on its own merits. At that time,

learned Advocate for the Respondent - Board submits that let

the board be directed to decide the Petitioner's application

dated 2nd August, 20219 on its own merits. He further submits

that they have no objection to set aside the orders dated 28th

July, 2020 and 6th November, 2020. In view of this, by consent

of both parties, following order is passed:-

a) The orders dated 28th July, 2020 and 6th November,

2020 passed by the Respondent - Board are set aside.

b) The Respondent - Board is directed to decide the

Petitioner's application dated 2nd August, 2019 for retention of

railway quarter H - 23, Badhwar Park, Mumbai for 59 days on

its own merits as early as possible.

c) Writ Petition stands disposed of with these directions.

d) No order as to costs.

e) Parties to act upon authenticated copy of this Order.

[R.I. CHAGLA J.]                      [K.K. TATED, J.]