Shiv Anand vs Union Of India & Anr.
2014 Latest Caselaw 2246 Del

11 & 12
*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+             W.P.(C) 6668/2013 & CM No.14471/2013


                                                 Decided on : 05.05.2014
IN THE MATTERS OF

SHIV ANAND                                            ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate

                         versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                         ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate


                                   AND


+           W.P.(C) 8191/2013 & CM No.17286/2013
JAMIL AHMED                                           ..... Petitioner
                         Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate

                         versus

UNION OF INDIA & ANR.                       ..... Respondents
                    Through: Mr. Joydeep Mazumdar, Advocate

CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)

1. This order shall govern two petitions filed by the petitioners

praying inter alia for identical relief, which is for issuance of directions

to the respondents/Railways to declare the proceedings of closure of

STD/PCO/FAX/Internet booths allotted to them at New Delhi Railway

Station, as illegal and arbitrary and to call upon the

respondent/Railways to explain failure on their part to invite fresh bids

for the aforesaid PCO booths.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of WP(C)No.6668/2013

are taken into consideration.

3. The petitioner in WP(C) No.6668/2013 was allotted a PCO booth

at New Delhi Railway Station on 23.10.2003. Originally, the said

allotment was made for a period of three years. However, it is an

admitted position that later on, the said period of three years was

extended to five years. At the expiry of the first term of contract on

22.10.2008, the said contract was extended for another term of five

years, from 23.10.2008 to 22.10.2013.

4. On 2.10.2013, the petitioner had approached the respondent/

Railways seeking renewal of the contract on the ground that the

Railways had failed to take steps to invite fresh bids for the PCO booth

allotted to him. On 9.10.2013, the petitioner received a letter from

the respondent/ Railways calling upon him to deposit the licence fees

in respect of the subject booth for the period w.e.f. 1.10.2013 to

31.3.2014. The petitioner had immediately deposited the amount

demanded on 10.10.2013, but to his utter surprise, he came to know

that the respondent/Railways was taking steps to close down the PCO

booths and they had even issued a closure notice to the petitioner in

WP(C)No.8191/2013, informing him that the tenure of his contract was

over and calling upon him to close the said booth. Immediately upon

gaining knowledge of the aforesaid steps being taken by the

respondent/Railways, the petitioner had filed the present petition on

22.10.2013.

5. While issuing notice in the writ petition, an interim order was

passed in both the petitions, directing that the contract of the

petitioners would not be terminated till the next date of hearing. The

said order is continuing to operate in favour of the petitioners.

6. A counter affidavit in opposition to the writ petition has been

filed by the respondent/Railways, wherein it is stated that the Railways

has acted in consonance with the Policy Circular dated 14.5.2004,

whereunder, it is stipulated that the licence to be granted to an

individual cannot extend beyond the period of ten years, including the

extended period, and no further extension shall be permitted.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways states that it is an

undisputed position that the petitioners have remained in occupation

of the subject booths beyond the period of ten years as prescribed in

the Circular. But, as the fault lay with the respondent/Railways in

accepting licence fees from the petitioners for the additional period of

six months, the respondent/Railways had not taken any steps to

dispossess them. It is further stated that the department is taking

steps to call for fresh bids for the subject booths, but the same has got

delayed on account of the order dated 6.3.2014 passed in

WP(C)No.7182/2010 entitled 'Kuldeep Singh vs. Union of India &

Ors., wherein the petitioner therein, who is a physically handicapped

person and had been allotted a STD/ISD/PCO booth, had approached

the Court for protection against the purported illegal action on the part

of the Railways in trying to dispossess him.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent/Railways submits that in the

aforesaid writ petition, the court had directed that the vacant booths in

the category of disabled persons would be allocated first and if the

petitioner's booth is specifically bid for, then he would be

accommodated in a vacant booth in the same category on completion

of formalities. However, if the Railways did not receive any application

for the petitioner's booth, then he would be permitted to continue

occupying the same.

9. Counsel for the respondent/Railways states that the department

is taking a holistic view on the issue of allotment of STD/ISD/PCO

booths situated at New Delhi Railway Station and at Nizamuddin

Railway Station and it will soon take steps to invite fresh bids by

issuing public notices.

10. On the issue of discrimination, as has been alleged by the

petitioners, learned counsel for the respondent/Railways states that

the Railways has been following a uniform policy of allotment/renewal

of contracts and it did not adopt any pick and choose policy in the

present case, as has been claimed by the other side. In support of his

submission that the Railways have already closed down all such

STD/ISD/PCO booths that were being operated by individuals for over

ten years, learned counsel hands over a copy of the letter dated

14.10.2013 issued by the Divisional Office, Northern Railway, New

Delhi listing inter alia 15 booths, including those occupied by the

petitioners herein, at Sr.Nos.5 & 6, as those that have completed the

tenure of ten years and recommending that they should be closed

down. A copy of the aforesaid letter is handed to the counsel for the

petitioners as also to the Court and taken on record.

11. In addition to the above, it is stated that due to the fact that an

officer of the department was at fault for having issued letters to the

petitioners calling upon them to deposit the licence fees beyond the

extended period of ten years, appropriate departmental action had

been initiated against and a warning letter has been issued to the

erring official(s).

12. Thus, counsel for the respondent/Railways states that in view of

the aforesaid uniform policy decision taken by the Railways, all the

thirteen booths, except for those occupied by the petitioners herein,

have been closed down and their possession taken over. But in the

case of petitioners herein, no coercive steps have been taken by the

respondents in view of the interim orders operating in their favour.

13. Counsel for the petitioners states that the respondent/Railways

was under a mandate to have taken necessary steps well in advance

for notifying tenders for the allotment of PCO booths upon expiry of

the contractual periods, which it has failed to do and till such time that

fresh contracts are finalized, the petitioners should be permitted to

continue occupying the subject booths on payment of licence fee at the

same rate.

14. Counsel for the respondent/Railways suggests that the

petitioners still have an option to approach the respondent/Railways

directly with such a request.

15. In view of the aforesaid position, this Court is not inclined to

grant any relief to the petitioners as has been prayed for. However,

liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the respondent/

Railways with a representation within one week, for permission to

continue occupying the subject booths on a purely temporary basis, on

payment of licence fees, along with an undertaking that they shall

hand over vacant peaceful possession of the same, as and when the

contracts are finalized for allotment to the successful bidders. The said

representations shall be duly considered and in case the same are

found to be commercially viable, the respondent/Railways shall pass

appropriate orders within one week thereafter, under written

intimation to the petitioners. Till then, no coercive steps shall be

taken against the petitioners.

16. If the respondent/Railways decides to turn down the

representations of the petitioners, then they shall handover vacant

peaceful possession of the subject booths to the respondent/Railways

within one week from the date of receipt of the decision.

17. The petitions are disposed of, along with the pending

applications.

HIMA KOHLI, J MAY 05, 2014 sk/mk/rkb