Anil Kumar vs U O I Tourism And Catering Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 2449 Raj/2

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13047/2011

Anil Kumar
                                                                  ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
U O I Tourism And Catering Ors
                                                                ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13681/2011 Smt Gita Devi

----Petitioner Versus U O I And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4419/2013 Pradeep Sharma

----Petitioner Versus U O I And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5002/2013 Mohan Lal Sharma

----Petitioner Versus U O I And Ors

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 812/2022 Mohan Sharma S/o Late Shri Babu Lal Sharma

----Petitioner Versus Chief Commercial Manager

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6218/2022 Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Moti Lal

----Petitioner Versus Chief Commercial Manager

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6428/2022 Bhagwan Swarup Sharma S/o Shri Jamuna Prasad

(2 of 4) [CW-13047/2011]

----Petitioner Versus Chief Commercial Manager, Passenger Services

----Respondent S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10426/2022 Shailesh Thakkar Son Of Late Shri Jayendra Lal Thakkar

----Petitioner Versus Union Of India

----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Shailesh Thakkar petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Khangar, CLA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Order

28/02/2023

Petitioners are present in person.

These matters pertain to right to livelihood of trolley

vendors, who were operating there trolleys at various railway

stations in the State of Rajasthan for years and in some cases, for

decades. The cause of action in the matter arose when requisite

licenses were not renewed by the respondent authorities and the

petitioners were prevented from operating their respective

trolleys.

The matter was heard at length on 07/02/2023 and after

hearing both the sides, an interim order was passed, by relying

upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Senior Divisional

Commercial Manager and Ors. vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry

Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and Ors:

(2016) 3 SCC 582, and directions were given to the respondents

(3 of 4) [CW-13047/2011]

to allow the petitioners to operate their respective trolleys subject

to final outcome of the writ petition. The interim order was

provisional and it was clarified that no equity would arise in favour

of the petitioners. Considering the urgency in the matter and

considering that matter pertained to right to livelihood, the matter

was fixed for final disposal on 27/02/2023 at 2.00 pm.

However, on 27/02/2023, no counsels appeared on behalf of

the respondent-Railway and respondent-Union of India to contest

the matter. The officers present in court submitted that the

arguing counsels were not appearing on account of strike.

Taking a stern view of the absence of government counsel,

and by relying upon Hon'ble Apex Court judgment of Ex Captain

Harish Uppal vs. Union of India: (2003) 2 SCC 45, wherein it

was held that lawyers have no right to strike or boycott work, the

matter was adjourned for a day and counsels for the respondents

were directed to explain their absence, especially when the matter

was fixed for final disposal at a specific time.

Today, when the matter was called, again no counsels

appeared on behalf of the respondent to contest the matter

despite of categoric order of this Court and the dictum of Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal (supra). Mr. Mukesh

Kumar Khangar, CLA, officer present in Court, sought an

adjournment on account of absence of counsels to contest the

matter.

It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has

specifically held that strike or boycott or abstaining from work by

the lawyers is illegal, and that counsels are duty bound to put in

their appearance once the matter is listed before the Court.

(4 of 4) [CW-13047/2011]

Taking a serious note of the fact that despite the decision of

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Harish Uppal (supra) and

order of this court dated 27/02/2023, the counsels are still

abstaining from work, this Court is compelled to direct Respondent

No. 1 [Executive Director (Tourism and Catering), Railway Board,

Ministry of Railways, New Delhi] and Respondent No. 2 [ Chief

Commercial Manager, Passenger Services, West Central Railways,

Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh)] to remain present in Court along with

the necessary record on 08/03/2023, as the matter pertains to

right to livelihood of the petitioners.

The respondents are also saddled with a cost of Rs. 50,000/-

(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) for non compliance of orders of this

Court. The said cost be paid to the petitioners on the next date of

hearing.

Registrar (Judicial) is directed to supply a copy of this order

in the office of Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No.2 through

email or fax or other mode of communication for necessary

compliance.

List these matters on 08/03/2023 for final disposal.

Interim to continue till then.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

ANIL SHARMA /132-139

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)