Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/8 vs The Union Of India And 3 Ors on 11 August, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Medhi

                                                              Page No.# 1/8

GAHC010105792024




                                                        2025:GAU-AS:10560

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : WP(C)/2810/2024

         MANOJ PRASAD
         S/O- LATE PRABHU NANDA,
         R/O- VILLAGE- BARPETA ROAD,
         DIST- BARPETA, ASSAM, PIN-781315



         VERSUS

         THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
         REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA,
         MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
         NEW DELHI-01

         2:NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
          REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER

         N.F RAILWAY
         MALIGAON

         GUWAHATI-11

         3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
          N.F RAILWAY
          RANGIA
          KAMRUP
         ASSAM
          PIN-781354

         4:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER
         WORKS
          BARPETA ROAD

         N.F RAILWAY
                                                                      Page No.# 2/8

             BARPETA ROAD
             ASSAM
             PIN-78131

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR S NATH, MS B BORA,DR G J SHARMA

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. K GOGOI




             Linked Case : WP(C)/2812/2024

            RAM NIWAS MISHRA
            S/O- LATE FULANA MISHRA

            R/O- VILLAGE BARPETA ROAD

            DIST- BARPETA
            ASSAM
            PIN-781315


             VERSUS

            THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
            REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA
            MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
            NEW DELHI-01

            2:NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY
            REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
             N.F RAILWAY
             MALIGAON
             GUWAHATI-11

            3:THE ESTATE OFFICER
            N.F RAILWAY
            RANGIA
            KAMRUP
            ASSAM
            PIN-781354

            4:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER
            WORKS
            BARPETA ROAD
                                                                             Page No.# 3/8

           N.F RAILWAY
           BARPETA ROAD
           ASSAM
           PIN-781315
           ------------

Advocate for : MR S NATH Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS

BEFORE

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI

Advocate for the petitioners : Shri S. Nath

Advocate for the respondents : Shri K. Gogoi, CGC Shri B. Chakraborty, CGC

Date of hearing : 11.08.2025 Date of Judgment : 11.08.2025

Judgment & Order Heard Shri S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners in both these cases. Also heard Shri K. Gogoi as well as Shri B. Chakraborty, learned CGCs appearing for the respondents respectively in these cases.

2. Both these cases being similar are taken up together for consideration and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. The relief prayed for in these two writ petitions, which are identical in nature, are extracted hereinbelow-

"In the premises aforesaid, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship

may be pleased to consider this application, admit the same, call for the records of the case and Issue Rule nisi upon the respondents as to why:-

Page No.# 4/8

(A) A Writ of Mandamus and/or certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing and/or commanding the respondents to set aside impugned letter/notice bearing No. E/W/UN/22 dated 19.08.2023 (ANNEXURE-A/11);

(B) A writ of mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ, order or direction should not be issued directing the respondents to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 (Rupees Two Lakhs) with interest at the rate of 12 (twelve) per cent per annum w.e.f.

10.11.2015 till the date of actual payment, as compensation in lieu of the expenses incurred by him towards construction of the shop at the newly allotted site;

-AND-

Cause or causes being shown and upon hearing the parties be pleased to make the Rule absolute and/or pass such other or further order (s) as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper.

-AND-

Pending disposal of this Writ Petition, it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to pass following direction:

(i) To direct the respondent authorities not to evict the petitioner from the site under his -occupation at Barpeta Road Railway Station without the leave of this Hon'ble Court;

(ii) And/or pass such further order/orders as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray."

Page No.# 5/8

4. It is the case of the petitioners that they were allotted certain areas in Barpeta Road Railway Station and were running their business. The petitioners were earlier issued notice for eviction and the said notices were challenged by way of an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Barpeta, which were however dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioners had filed writ petitions before this Court which were also dismissed.

5. Shri Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners has however submitted that irrespective of the fact that the earlier petitions were dismissed by this Court, there is an observation made for consideration of the cases of the petitioners. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment and order dated 08.08.2023 passed in a number of writ petitions and the observations sought to be relied upon are extracted hereinbelow:

"19. In the course of hearing, a submission has been advanced on

behalf of the petitioners that the respondent Railway authorities have permitted some other persons to run their businesses in certain parts within the Barpeta Road Railway Station premises. The said submission has been categorically denied from the sides of the respondent Railway authorities. As nothing has been pleaded on the said aspect nor any materials have been brought on record in support of such claim, this Court is not in a position to decide on the said aspect due to lack of materials. The main contention advanced on behalf of the respondent Railway authorities is that the practice of temporary licensing of Railway lands to private individuals have been discontinued since 2005 in view of the Master Circular dated 10.02.2005 and in the event any decision is taken for such kind of licensing as an exceptional case, the same would be only by public Page No.# 6/8

auction/open tender process. Thus, this Court can only observe, considering that the petitioners had earlier enjoyed license arrangements under the respondent Railway authorities for a considerable period of time for the purpose of their livelihood, that if at any point of time in future, the respondent Railway authorities take any decision to grant licenses within the Barpeta Road Railway Station premises, they would take into consideration the case of the petitioners about permitting them to take part in such public auction/open tender process."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also drawn the attention of this Court to the averment made in paragraph 29 and has submitted that alternative arrangements have been made for certain businessmen and the petitioners have been left out.

7. Both Shri Gogoi and Shri Chakraborty, the learned CGCs have however submitted that the present petitions are barred by the doctrine of res judicata inasmuch as, the issue involved was already decided by the competent Appellate Court and the said decision was upheld by this Court in a batch of writ petitions including petitions filed by the present petitioners which were disposed of by the common judgment and order dated 08.08.2023. It is submitted that the eviction notices which were issued in the year 2014 were the subject matters of challenge in appeals before the statutory authority, namely, the Additional District Judge, Barpeta and such appeals were rejected whereafter the parties, who had filed writ petitions which were dismissed, vide the judgment and order dated 08.08.2023. They have submitted that the same cause of eviction cannot be re-agitated by way of a second writ petition. It is also contended that the observations made by this Court in paragraph 19 of the Page No.# 7/8

said judgment would not come to aid of the petitioners.

8. The rival submissions have been duly considered.

9. While the learned counsel for the petitioners have relied upon certain observations made by this Court in paragraph 19 of the said common judgment and order, this Court has noticed that such observations were only on the aspect that the petitioners had enjoyed arrangements earlier and therefore their cases may be considered by permitting them to take part in public auction / open tender process. This Court has also noticed that there is a categorical finding of this Court in paragraph 18 of the said judgment and order that there was no merit in the writ petitions. For ready reference, the observations made which read as follows:

"18. In view of the discussion made above and for the reasons

assigned therein, the writ petitions are found to be devoid of any merit. The writ petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed and they are accordingly dismissed. Interim orders, if any, are recalled."

10. Though the learned counsel for the petitioners has made a submission that certain persons were given allotment and the petitioners were left out, a bare perusal of the relief prayed for would show that there is not even a whisper towards a relief for such consideration and the relief is confined to the order by which eviction was directed. The petitioners have also prayed for monetary compensation in lieu of the expenses incurred by them in construction of the shop but there is no prayer with regard to any consideration for allotment.

11. Be that as it may, the rights conferred under Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a positive right and by citing any infraction of law, a party cannot Page No.# 8/8

demand a similar benefit. This Court has also taken into consideration that the earlier round of the eviction process had ended up in dismissal of the writ petition whereby the judgment rendered by the Additional District Judge, Barpeta has been upheld. As regards the application of the doctrine of res judicata in a writ proceeding, it is no longer res integra that such application must be balanced with constitutional imperatives and only when the right to personal liberty is involved such doctrine may not come into play.

12. As regards the observations of this Court in paragraph 19 of the said judgment dated 08.08.2023, this Court has noticed that the observations were only towards considering the case of the petitioners in case any space is allotted by public auction. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have participated in any public auction and were not considered.

13. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners and accordingly the writ petitions are dismissed.

14. No order as to cost.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant