Madras High Court
J.Nagarajan vs The Chief Commercial Manager on 29 June, 2022
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.06.2022
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.MUNISHWAR NATH BHANDARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE N.MALA
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
J.Nagarajan ... Appellant
vs
1.The Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
2.The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem 636 005
3.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem 636 005
4.The Southern Railway,
rep. By its General Manager,
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003 ... Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 11.03.2020 in WP No.8419 of 2019.
___________
Page 1 of 9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Selvaraj,
for M/s.Christopher Kishore Vincent
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by
the Hon'ble Chief Justice)
The writ appeal is filed to challenge the order dated 11.03.2020
in W.P.No.8419 of 2019 by which the writ petition was dismissed. The
Writ petition was filed to seek a direction to renew the licence of the
stall, Snacks and Travel Accessories, in Platform No.1, Erode Railway
Station in the appellant's name and accordingly quash the
proceedings dated 01.12.2018 by which bids were invited to auction
the stall in question.
2. The writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge
finding that prior to the aforesaid writ petition, appellant's mother
had filed a writ petition in W.P.No.5718 of 2015 when the licence was
not renewed, and in the said writ petition, the writ appellant was
impleaded as a party, as his mother died during the pendency of the
writ petition. W.P.No.5718 of 2015 was disposed of by a detailed
order dated 18.04.2018, along with other connected writ petitions.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
Learned Single Judge has taken note that appellant's mother was
awarded licence for running the stall for a period of five years from
01.03.2007 to 28.02.2012. The said licence was renewed thereafter
for three years, ending on 28.02.2015. A tender notice was issued
inviting bids on 02.02.2015 and thereby, renewal of licence of the
appellant's mother and other licensees were not considered. The
same was challenged in W.P.No.5718 of 2015. During the pendency
of the writ petition, appellant's mother died on 11.04.2017 and the
stall was closed. Since the licence period had already expired in the
year 2015 and appellant's mother died during the pendency of the
writ petition, the writ court dismissed the writ petition holding “the
prayer sought for in the writ petition having become infructuous, no
further order can be passed in the writ petition”. The Railway
Department thereupon did not receive any application for renewal of
licence from the appellant.
3. The appellant filed an appeal against the order made in
W.P.No.5718 of 2015 in W.A.No.1040 of 2018.
4. The matter was considered by the Division Bench and
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
pursuant to the direction of the Division Bench, the issue was
reexamined by the Railway Department and a reasoned order was
passed on 01.12.2019 stating that the licence granted to the
appellant's mother expired on 28.02.2015 and neither renewal was
granted nor agreement was executed beyond 28.02.2015. Since the
appellant's mother expired on 11.04.2017, i.e. after the expiry of the
period of licence viz., 28.02.2015, licence could not be renewed or
extended. Moreover, fresh tender notice was issued on 15.05.2018
and stall has been granted to the successful bidder. In view of the
above, no right was found in favour of the writ appellant.
5. Learned counsel for the writ appellant submitted that during
her lifetime, an application to renew the licence was made by the
appellant's mother and pursuant to the interim order in W.P.No.5718
of 2015, she continued to run the stall till she died in the year 2017.
In view of the above, there was a deemed renewal till the expiry of
the appellant's mother and therefore, the application for renewal of
the licence should have been considered by learned single Judge. But
ignoring the aforesaid, it is taken to be a case where appellant's
mother expired after expiry of the licence period. The prayer in the
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
present writ appeal is accordingly to cause interference in the order
of learned Single Judge. It is more so while the right created in
favour of others pursuant to the tender notice of the year 2018 could
not have prevailed over the right of the writ appellant to seek
renewal of the licence and if at all the stall has been allotted to
others, it could be cancelled with renewal of licence in favour of the
writ appellant. The prayer is accordingly to allow the writ appeal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the appellant. We find that the issue raised by the
appellant has been dealt with by learned Single Judge in detail. A
reference of few dates would be relevant. The last extension to the
licence in the name of the appellant’s mother expired on 28.02.2015.
Decision was taken by the railways not to renew the licence but to
invite tender for all the stalls. A challenge to it was made and an
interim order was also passed in favour of the mother of the
appellant. She, however, expired on 11.04.2017 and therefore, the
writ petition was dismissed and thereby, stay was vacated. The
Division Bench in W.A.No.1040 of 2018 has held in paragraphs 11 to
13 as follows:
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
"11. Indisputably, the legal heirs of the
licensees are entitled to the transfer of licence in
their names, if the licensees expire before the
expiry of the licence period. However, if the
period of licence has expired, then, the legal
heirs have no right to stake the claim for transfer
of licence in their name.
12. In the light of the above, we have no
hesitation to hold that the appellants are entitled
to the transfer of licence in their names only if
the period of licence of the original licensees is
not expired. However, whether the period of
licence has been expired or not has to be looked
into only by the respondents.
13. The respondents are, therefore,
directed to re-examine the matter and to verify
whether the period of licence granted to the
original licensees expired or not at the time of
the death of the licensees. If the period of licence
had expired, then the appellants cannot have any
further claim for the transfer of licence in their
names. But, if the licence period had not expired
at the time of the death of the original licensees,
then, the respondents shall consider the claim of
the appellants for transfer of licence in their
names for the remaining period of licence.”
7. The Division Bench made a specific observation that legal
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
heirs of the licensee would be entitled for transfer of the licence if
licensee expired before the expiry of the period of licence. However,
if the period of licence expired prior to the death of the licensee,
then they would be having no right. In reference to the observation
aforesaid, the dates given above became relevant because licence
expired in the year 2015 while the licensee died in the year 2017.
8. An interim order passed by this court to operate the stall by
the appellant's mother would not mean extension of the licence or
its renewal. Therefore, learned Single Judge, taking note of the
finding of the Division Bench in the earlier round of litigation, came
to the conclusion that the writ appellant has no right to seek
renewal of the licence. It was also noted that during the intervening
period, a tender was invited on 15.05.2018 and pursuant to the
tender process, successful bidder was given licence on 31.08.2018
and thereby, without a challenge to the tender and grant of licence,
the successful bidder cannot be removed to accommodate the writ
appellant who otherwise has no right to seek renewal of licence of
the stall. We do not find any error in the judgment of learned Single
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
Judge. We do not find any merits in the arguments advanced by
learned counsel for the appellant.
9. The writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. There will
be no order as to costs.
(M.N.B., CJ.) (N.M., J.)
29.06.2022
Index : Yes/No
tar
To
1.The Chief Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
2.The Divisional Railway Manager,
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem 636 005
3.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager,
Southern Railway,
Salem Division,
Salem 636 005
4.The Southern Railway,
rep. By its General Manager,
Park Town,
Chennai 600 003
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
M.N.Bhandari, CJ.
and
N.Mala, J.
(tar)
W.A.No.1372 of 2022
29.06.2022
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
