P.R.Mohammed Ismail vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 11383 Ker

WP(C) NO. 22476 OF 2016           1



            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                            PRESENT
        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
 FRIDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
                    WP(C) NO. 22476 OF 2016
PETITIONER/S:

          P.R.MOHAMMED ISMAIL
          AGED 80 YEARS
          S/O. M.C.RAWTHER KHAN,
          CHENGATHARAYIL HOUSE, PUZHAVATHU,
          PERUNNA, CHANGANACHERRY.

          BY ADV SRI.MARTIN G.THOTTAN
RESPONDENT/S:

    1     UNION OF INDIA
          REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
          SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN P.O.,
          CHENNAI-600 003.

    2     THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
          SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION,
          TRIVANDRUM-694 014.

    3     THE STATION MANAGER
          SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
          CHANGANACHERRY RAILWAY STATION,
          CHANGANACHERRY.

          BY ADVS.
          SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS
          SRI. KRISHNADAS P. NAIR, CGC
    THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 22476 OF 2016                    2




                                 JUDGMENT

This writ petition is filed seeking to quash Ext.P3 dated 01.07.2016, by

which the petitioner was informed that no further extension shall be granted

and the license in his favour would stand terminated on 30.06.2016. The

petitioner has also sought direction from respondents 1 to 3 to extend the

license for running the platform stall in platform No.1 at Changanacherry

railway station.

2. It appears that this Court, by an interim order dated 08.07.2016, had

directed the petitioner to file an affidavit before the 2nd respondent and the

2nd respondent was directed to consider the affidavit in the light of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016

and take a decision within a period of two weeks.

3. When this matter was taken up for consideration, none appeared for

the petitioner. It appears from the records that the reliefs sought in this writ

petition have become infructuous.

This writ petition is closed as infructuous.

Sd/-

RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JUDGE NS