Smt. Laxmi Bai vs Union Of India And Ors. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8306 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:34187]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12540/2018

Kavita Mangrani W/o Late Ashok Kumar Mangrani, Aged About 51 Years, Nimbaheda, District- Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh).

2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam (Madhya Pradesh).

3. The Station Manager, Western Railway, Nimbaheda, District Chittorgarh (Raj.).

----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16558/2017 Smt. Krishna Bai W/o Late Bheru Singh, R/o Village- Paachali, Post- Netawal Maharaj Ki, Via- Singhpur, Tehsil And District- Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India Through General Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh

2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh

3. The Station Manager, Western Railway, Chittorgarh Raj.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16882/2017 Smt. Laxmi Bai W/o Late Narayan Das, By Caste Sindhi, R/o 1- Cha-18, Housing Board, Kumbha Nagar, Chittorgarh.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Union Of India Through General Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh

2. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Western Railway, Ratlam Madhya Pradesh

3. The Station Manager, Western Railway, Chittorgarh Raj..

                                                                 ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)          :    None present
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Jagdish Vyas



               HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI

                                     Order




 [2023:RJ-JD:34187]                     (2 of 4)                       [CW-12540/2018]


10/10/2023

1. Since all these writ petitions involve identical question of law,

thus, the same are being decided by a common order.

2. These writ petitions have been preferred by the petitioners

under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in sum and

substance, claiming for the following reliefs:-

SBCWP No.12540/2018 :-

"(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned orders dated 24.07.2018 (Annex.9) and 07.8.2018 (Annex.11) passed by the respondents may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to transfer the license of licencee Mitharam & Sons to the petitioner for operating the catering trolley & stall at Railway Station-Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh or alternatively, the petitioner may be permitted to continue with the operation of catering trolley & stall on adhoc/ temporary basis, till the new contract is executed."

3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner had preferred

an application dated 3.8.2018 before the respondents for

transferring license of the catering unit/ stall in favour of the

petitioner. The respondents issued order dated 07.8.2018 while

rejecting the application of the petitioner on the ground that in

view of the Catering Policy in the event of death of the original

licensee, the catering license can be transferred to the legal heirs

for the unexpired period of contract and contract agreement.

However, in the present case, the term of the contract has expired

on 31.10.2010 and, thus, the license of the catering units could

not be transferred in the name of legal heirs.

[2023:RJ-JD:34187] (3 of 4) [CW-12540/2018]

4. Nobody appeared for the petitioner when the matter was

called in the first round and even in the second round, none

appears.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent states at Bar that he has

requested learned counsel for the petitioner to appear in the

matters but learned counsel for the petitioner informed learned

counsel for the respondents that he does not have instructions to

appear in the matter.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent also submits that an

application for vacation of interim order was filed way back in the

2019 and till date the same is pending and the interim order

granted by this Court dated 28.8.2018 is still in currency.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that

the controversy involved in present writ petitions is squarely

covered by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this

Court in Union of India Vs. Om Prakash & Ors. (D.B. Civil

Special Appeal No.117/98), decided on 05.2.1998 and the

relevant part of the order is reproduced hereunder :-

"We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the order of the learned Single Judge holding that the petition was not entertainable as it was based on contractual relationship and also holding that no direction could be given in exercise of Article 226 for renewal of a contract against the terms of a contract agreement. The petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs."

8. The present writ petitions being based on contractual

relationship and while keeping into consideration the judgment

passed by this Court dated 05.02.1998 in Union of India Vs. Om

[2023:RJ-JD:34187] (4 of 4) [CW-12540/2018]

Prakash & Ors. (supra)., the present writ petitions are not

entertainable on the ground that the writ petitions are based on

contractual relationship and that no direction could be given in

exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

for renewal of a contract against the terms of a contract

agreement. Accordingly, the writ petitions stands dismissed.

9. Stay application as well as all pending applications, if any,

stands dismissed.

(DR. NUPUR BHATI),J 85-87 Sanjay/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)