Union Of India vs M/S Student Travel Corporation
2014 Latest Caselaw 5545 Del

          *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                 Date of decision: 7th November, 2014

+                               LPA No.463/2014

       UNION OF INDIA                                    ..... Appellant
                    Through:           Mr. R.V. Sinha, Adv.

                                   Versus

    M/S STUDENT TRAVEL CORPORATION ..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Giriraj Subramanium, Adv.

CORAM:-

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 19th May, 2014 of the

learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.3013/2014 filed by the

respondent.

2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the

respondent / writ petitioner impugning the Commercial Circular dated 4th

September, 2009 of the appellant Railways, of doing away with the Scheme

formulated as far back as in the year 1980 of 'Rail Tourist Agents', in the light

of drastic changes in 33 years from when the Scheme was first formulated and

also directing that no further appointments of Rail Tourist Agents be made and

observing that the licences of the existing Rail Tourist Agents should not be

renewed whenever they are due for renewal. The respondent / writ petitioner

was one such Rail Tourist Agent since the year 1996 and his licence was being

renewed from time to time and was valid till 15th May, 2014 and was not

renewed in accordance with the impugned Circular. Accordingly, the writ

petition was filed.

3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, though has not found

any merit in the petition and dismissed the same but for the reason of the

respondent / writ petitioner having remained a Rail Tourist Agent for over two

decades and to enable it to re-arrange its affairs and make adequate alternative

arrangements, granted six months time ending on 30th November, 2014 to the

respondent / writ petitioner to wind up its business. Thus effectively, though

the learned Single Judge did dismiss the petition, but extended the licence of

the respondent / writ petitioner till 30th November, 2014.

4. The appeal came up before us first on 14th July, 2014 when while issuing

notice of the same, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was

stayed. We have heard the counsel for the parties.

5. We were during the hearing, on enquiry, informed that the respondent /

writ petitioner has not worked as a Rail Tourist Agent since 15 th May, 2014 and

was not allowed to so function even after the impugned order dated 19 th May,

2014 and till we heard the appeal on 14th October, 2014. Moreover, even the

time till 30th November, 2014, till when the learned Single Judge has extended

the licence of the respondent/writ petitioner is now about to expire.

6. The counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner has argued that the

business as the Rail Tourist Agent has been the sole business proprietor of the

respondent and the licence of the respondent / writ petitioner be extended for a

period of six months from the date of disposal of this appeal, to enable the

proprietor of the respondent to earn his livelihood and make alternative source

of livelihood.

7. We are not satisfied with the reason which prevailed with the learned

Single Judge to, though not finding any merit in the challenge to the action of

the appellant impugned in the writ petition, still extending the licence of the

respondent / writ petitioner on the ground of the respondent/writ petitioner

having not had sufficient notice. As aforesaid, the decision to not renew such

licences was taken on 4th September, 2013; the licence of the respondent / writ

petitioner was valid till 15th May, 2014 and was not disturbed. The respondent

/ writ petitioner thus had nearly nine months notice that his licence will not be

renewed after 15th May, 2014. In fact, the respondent / writ petitioner

immediately after the Circular dated 4th September, 2013 i.e. since 27th

September, 2013 had been making representations against the said decision of

the appellant Railways. The respondent / writ petitioner thus had sufficient

time to arrange his affairs.

8. Moreover, once no merit had been found, the question of extending the

licence amounting to allowing the writ petition did not arise.

9. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the direction of the

learned Single Judge of allowing the respondent / writ petitioner to continue as

a Rail Tourist Agent till 30th November, 2014. However no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J

CHIEF JUSTICE NOVEMBER 7, 2014 'gsr'