P. Ravindran (through legal heirs) v. Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai Division, and Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Trivandrum

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY,THE 06TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2018/15TH AGRAHAYANA, 1940** **WP(C).No. 12319 of 2018** ## **PETITIONER:** **1 SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (DIED)* AGED 58 YEARS, SON OF SRI.PAUL NADAR, VISHNU BHAVAN, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA-683101. ADDL.2 SMT.R.AMUTHA, AGED 66 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE MR.P.RAVINDRAN. RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVAN, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA-683101. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 IN IA 1/2018) ADDL.3 SMT.R.KAVITHA, AGED 28 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR.P.RAVINDRAN. RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVAN, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA-683101. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 IN IA 1/2018) ADDL.4 SMT.R.GEETHA, AGED 27 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF LATE MR.P.RAVINDRAN. RESIDING AT VISHNU BHAVAN, EDAYAPURAM, ALUVA-683101. (IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 22.10.2018 IN IA 1/2018)** **BY ADVS. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.ANILA PETER SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SRI.SAJEN THAMPAN SRI.S.SUDHEESH** ## **RESPONDENTS:** **1 THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI DIVISION, CHENNAI-3. 2 THE SR. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, TRIVANDRUM-14.** **STANDING COUNSEL SRI.C.S.DIAS** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2018, THE COURT ON 06.12.2018 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C).No.12319/18 2 ## **JUDGMENT** - 1.Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following reliefs:- “i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, or such other writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to allow Exhibit P4 and thereby grant renewal of licence to the petitioner to operate Catering Stall (TVC/082) on platform No.4/5 at Ernakulam Junction Railway Station without having to participate in Exhibit P5 or any other tendering/bidding process. ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondents not to entertain and finalise Exhibit P5 or any other bids invited for Caterion Stall (TVC/082) on platform No.4/5 at Ernakulam Junction Railway Station Hall. ” - 2.Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. Petitioner was awarded licence to operate a Catering and Bakery Stall (TVC/080) on Platform No.2/3 and a Catering Stall (TVC/082) on Platform No.4/5, both in Ernakulam Junction Railway Station. Though the period of licence W.P.(C).No.12319/18 3 prescribed was five years, it was subsequently extended. In the meantime the petitioner submitted Exhibit P3 letter to the 2[nd] respondent requesting that Stall No.TVC/080 may be closed with effect from 31.3.2018. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 request for permission to continue to operate the remaining stall in terms of Exhibit P6 commercial circular, but the same was rejected and auction was conducted in respect of the stall. The petitioner approached this Court and an interim order directing that Exhibit P5 tender proceedings will be subject to result of the writ petition was passed. 4. The petitioner expired during the pendency of the writ petition and his legal representatives have come on record by impleading them as petitioners. It is contended that that they were entitled to extension of licence in terms of the directions of the Apex Court in **Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and Others** _**v.**_ **S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juicestalls Welfare Association And Another** [(2016) 3 SCC 582]. The petitioner was the licencee of the premises as on the date W.P.(C).No.12319/18 4 when the said judgment was rendered. It is stated that Exhibit P6 commercial circular was issued on 15.3.2017 directing renewal of licences for refreshment room, catering stall or kiosk of persons with only one such licence, without undergoing the auction procedure. It is stated that though the petitioner submitted Exhibit P4 representation, the same was not considered and auction was conducted. 5.A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents stating that the petitioner is not entitled to seek the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court, since the petitioner was not a single unit operator at all and he held two units in his own name. It is stated that several misconducts had been found against the petitioner and he had been penalised for the same. It is further stated that the committee constituted to consider the petitioner's application for renewal, rejected the same. It is further contended that the petitioner was operating the stall of licence fee of Rs.4,40,000/- while the minimum reserve price for the tender is Rs.9,87,500/-. W.P.(C).No.12319/18 5 6.I have considered the contentions advanced. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court seeking substantially the same prayers. By Exhibits P1 and P2 judgments, this Court found that the petitioner's licence is valid only up to 31.12.2016. This Court directed consideration of the representation preferred by the petitioner and the continuance till the tender proceedings were finalised. It is stated that pursuant to the re-tender proceedings, the stall was taken possession on 31.1.2017, but the petitioner was permitted to continue till the new tenderer occupies the space. The said direction in Exhibit P2 judgment was a result of concession by the railways to that extent. 7. The Apex Court had directed that single unit licencees would be entitled to continue the licences issued to them. However, the original licencee in this case was not a single unit licencee. He was running two units. The petitioner had surrendered one unit only by Exhibit P3 dated 31.3.2018. The learned counsel for the respondents also relies on Exhibit R2(1) issued by this Court in a similar case where the claim for continuance W.P.(C).No.12319/18 6 by a licencee who had two units in his own name was considered and rejected. In the instant case the original licencee is no more. The legal heirs claim the benefit of the judgment of the Apex Court. I am of the opinion that in the light of Exhibits P1 and P2 judgments the legal heirs of the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of continuance on the strength of the decision of the Apex Court, in view of the fact that the petitioner licencee held two licences and was not eligible for the benefit conferred by the judgment. 8. The claim that the licencee would be entitled to the benefit of the judgment is also not acceptable, in view of the fact that even the extended period of licence was only till 31.12.2016. On the strength of such licence, the licencee or his legal heirs cannot claim the benefit of either the judgment of the Apex Court or Exhibit P6 circular, since such a relief would give rise to claims by several single unit licencees, who had held licence at prior points in time and whose licences had since expired. The contention of the respondents that the financial viability is also to be taken into account appears to be a tenable W.P.(C).No.12319/18 7 contention as well. In the above view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the rejection of the petitioner's claim for continuance and the proceedings taken for retender cannot be faulted. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **Anu Sivaraman, Judge** sj W.P.(C).No.12319/18 8 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **EXHIBIT P1TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN W.P. (C)NO.261/2017 DATED 09/01/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P2TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.6442/2017 OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 01/03/2017.** - **EXHIBIT P3TRUE COPY OF LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 21/03/2018.** **EXHIBIT P4TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03/04/2018. EXHIBIT P5TRUE COPY OF BID NOTICE NO.V/C.79/CATG/GMU/TENDER PHASE I/18 DATED 14/03/2018.** **EXHIBIT P6TRUE COPY OF COMMERCIAL CIRCULAR NO.22 OF 2017 ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY BOARD TO ITS GENERAL MANAGERS IN ALL ZONES DATED 15/03/2017.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN WPC.NO.34903/2014 DATED 20-12-2014.** **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT OF FINE OF RS.500/- PAID BY STALL -8 OPERATING IN PLATFORM NO.1 DATED 8-9-2016** **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE ANDHRA HIGH COURT IN WA NO.1175/2016 DATED 28-11-2016** W.P.(C).No.12319/18 9 **EXHIBIT P10** **TRUE COPY OF COMMON ORDER OF THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN WP NOS.29000 AND 32134 OF 2016 AND WMP NOS.25077 AND 25078 OF 2016 IN WP.NO.29000 OF 2016 DATED 8-12-2016** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (C) NO.13638/2016 DATED 19-92017.** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **EXHIBIT R2 (1) TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C).NO.32954/2016 DATED 8.11.2016.** True copy PS to Judge