Patna High Court
Ramesh Kumar vs Senior Divisional Engineer (Ii) on 19 February, 2025
Author: A. Abhishek Reddy
Bench: A. Abhishek Reddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2836 of 2024
======================================================
Ramesh Kumar Son of Late Laxmi Narayan Having Place of Business and
Resident of Department Store Building, Station Road, Gaya, P.S.-Kotwali,
District-Gaya
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Senior Divisional Engineer (II) East Central Railway DDU, DDU, U.P.
2. The Divisional Superintendent, East Central Railway, Danapur, District -
Patna.
3. The Chief Engineer, Eastern Railway, Kolkata, Currently Under the
Jurisdiction of Hajipur, District Vaishali (Bihar)
4. Divisional Superintendent, Eastern Railway, Danapur, Currently Known as
Divisional Superintendent, east Central Railway, DDU (U.P.)
5. The General Manager, Eastern Railway, Kolkata Currently Under the
Jurisdiction of Hajipur, District-Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alka Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Additional Solicitor General
For the Railways : Mr. Alok Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A. ABHISHEK REDDY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 19-02-2025
Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. This writ petition has been filed for the following
relief(s):-
"I. The present writ application is filed in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated
18.12.2023
passed by the Senior Divisional Engineer (II)
East Central Railway, DDU (speaking order) passed in
the light of the order dated 02.11.2023 in C.W.J.C. No.
12144 of 2019 by the Hon'ble Patna High Court by
which the respondent authority has been pleased to
observe that the area of 600 sq ft. given to the petitioner
to be vacated at the earliest as redevelopment work of
Gaya Railway Station can be done and circulating area
may be conducted smoothly in time; on the ground that
Patna High Court CWJC No.2836 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
the direction passed by the Hon'ble Patna High court to
conduct a re-surveyed is not been furnished to the
petitioner, the order being apssed is a non-speaking
order, there is no reason assigned to retract the statement
as passed by the Hon'ble Patna High Court without
given any reasons, it is a non-consideration as show
cause reply;
II. The present writ application is filed in the
nature of Certiorari for quashing the letter dated
17.01.2024 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer (II)
East Central Railway, DDU by which a direction is being
given to the petitioner to vacate the premises by
31.01.2024 otherwise departmental action would be
taken to vacate the said premises for the same cost is to
be borne by the petitioner; on the ground that there is no
non-speaking order by the respondent authority,
therefore, the subsequent order of vacating the premises
by 31.01.2024 is also bad in the eye of law.
III. The present writ application is filed in the
nature of Mandamus for a direction to the respondent
authority especially Senior Divisional Engineer (II) East
Central Railway, DDU and other respondents not to
disturb possession of the petitioner of 600 sq. ft. of land
for which the present petitioner has been continue his
business right from 1974 till today without proper action
in accordance with law."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that on
an earlier occasion the petitioner had approached this Court by
way of C.W.J.C. bearing No. 12144 of 2019 dated 02.11.2023
Patna High Court CWJC No.2836 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
(Annexure -P/17), wherein this Court has directed the respondent
authority to undertake survey and verify as to whether the parcel
of land in possession of the petitioner is coming under the re-
development of Gaya Railway Station and thereafter it was
directed to pass a detailed/speaking order. Learned counsel has
stated that following the said direction, the petitioner has given a
suitable representation, however the authority without following
the dictate of the Division Bench has passed the impugned order
on 18.12.2023 rejecting the case of the petitioner. Learned counsel
has stated that contrary to the directions of this Court, the authority
has passed the order in a cryptic and mechanical manner. The
authority except stating that it is a speaking order has not passed
the order duly giving any reasons and the same is in violation of
the directions given by this Hon'ble Court. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has, therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to allow the
present writ petition and remand the matter back to the authority
concerned for passing orders afresh duly keeping in mind the
directions given by the Hon'ble Court in earlier round of litigation.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondents has vehemently opposed the very maintainability
of the present writ petition. Learned counsel has stated that the
petitioner on one pretext or another is trying to retain his
Patna High Court CWJC No.2836 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
possession over the subject land. Learned counsel has stated that
the railway authorities in order to renovate and redevelop the Gaya
Railway Station have been issuing notices to all the vendors who
are operating from the platform to vacate the premises. Learned
counsel has stated that the petitioner does not have any right to
question the authority of the railways more so when the petitioner
is only a licensee and not a lessee. Learned counsel has stated that
the licensee is bound to vacate the premises as and when required
by the licensor. Learned counsel for the respondent has stated that
due to the stay granted by this Court on 23.02.2024, the subject
premises has come under litigation and the development work of
renovation of the Gaya Railway Station has come to a stand still.
Learned counsel has, therefore, prayed this Hon'ble Court to
dismiss the present writ petition.
5. Though the petitioner has tried to impress upon this
Court that the order passed by the authority pursuant to the
direction of the Division Bench is contrary to the directions given,
a perusal of the impugned order reveals that the authority before
passing the order, duly taking into consideration the directions
given by the Division Bench, has resurveyed the subject land and
found that the railway land on which the shop of the petitioner is
situated is required for the re-development of the Gaya Railway
Patna High Court CWJC No.2836 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
Station and its circulating area. Further, it is an admitted fact that
the petitioner is only a licensee and not a lease holder, the law on
license is well settled, the licensee has to vacate the premises as
and when the same is required by the licensing authority. Merely
because the order is short, it cannot be said that the order is cryptic
and not in accordance with the directions given by the Division
Bench. The order speaks for itself, a perusal of the same reveals
that the authority duly taking into consideration all the relevant
facts has passed the impugned order. Though the petitioner has
relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the
case of OXRY FISHERIES PRIVTE LIMITD versus UNION
OF INIDIA in Para 40 reported in (2010) 13 SCC 427., it is to be
kept in mind that the same is not applicable to the facts of the
present case. Once it is held that the petitioner is only a licensee,
the petitioner does not have any legs to stand. Further, it is to be
noted that once a survey has been done and it is found that the
shop of the petitioner is coming in the way of the re-development,
no equities can be shown in favour of the petitioner. The re-
development of the entire railway station cannot be stalled for the
sake of the petitioner. Further, it is to be noted that the license
period has also expired and as on date, there is no valid license
subsisting in the name of the petitioner. Duly taking into
Patna High Court CWJC No.2836 of 2024 dt.19-02-2025
consideration the totality of the circumstances and also the well
settled law into consideration, this Court does not find any merit in
the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to approach the
authority concerned by way of representation seeking allotment of
alternate accommodation for running his shop. If any such
application/ representation is made, the same shall be considered
by the authority concerned duly taking into consideration the age
of the petitioner, the number of years that he has been running the
shop in the railway premises and any other ground that the
petitioner may raise.
6. With the above directions, the present writ petition
stands disposed of.
(A. Abhishek Reddy , J)
Gauravkr/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 25.02.2025
Transmission Date N/A
