Jayanta Kumar Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2011

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Jayanta Kumar Ghosh vs Union Of India & Ors on 5 April, 2011

Bench: Jayanta Kumar Biswas

In The High Court At Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present : The Hon'ble Mr Justice Jayanta Kumar Biswas W.P.No.5358(W) of 2011 Jayanta Kumar Ghosh

-vs-

Union of India & Ors.


        Mr.   Pratik Prakash Banerji
        Mr.   Md. Danish Taslim
        Mr.   Chittaranjan Das
        Mr.   Arijit Ghosh                                 ....for the petitioner

        Mr. Amitesh Banerjee
        Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar
        Mr. Sanjiv K Trivedi                                      ....for IRCTC

        Mr. Saptangshu Roy                                   ....for the railway

Heard on : April 5, 2011

Judgment on : April 5, 2011

The Court : The petitioner in this art.226 petition dated March 18, 2011 is alleging that though he was entitled to get extension of licence to manage on-board catering services in Train No. 2501-02 Poorvotra Samparak Kranti Express beyond March 13, 2011, the General Manager, North-East Frontier Railway has refused to extend the term of the licence.

By an order dated December 6, 2010 at p.306 the term of the licence was extended upto March 13, 2011 on the conditions mentioned therein.

Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that seeking extension of the term of the licence the petitioner submitted the requisite application, but that the railway administration has refused to extend the term. Referring to the document at p.97 counsel for IRCTC submits that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

The document at p.97 is a part of the tender notice. The work was given to the petitioner as he was the successful bidder in the tender process, and the terms and conditions of the tender provided that the award of licence would be governed by the jurisdiction of Courts situated in the State of Delhi.

Here the question is whether this Court has jurisdiction to entertain this petition. I do not think for the purpose the terms and conditions of the tender notice relied on by counsel for IRCTC are relevant. Counsel for the parties were given an opportunity to consider the decision of this Court dated January 19, 2011 in W.P.No.22106(W) of 2010 (SRRAK-REIPL-JV & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.).

Here the cause of action on the basis whereof this petition has been brought was in the refusal on the part of the General Manager of North-East Frontier Railway to extend the term of the petitioner's licence whose last term was extended by the order dated December 6, 2010.

Admittedly, the General Manager, having his seat outside the territories in relation to which this Court exercises jurisdiction under art.226, has taken the decision not to extend the term of the licence in Guwahati, also a place outside those territories.

Considering these facts and the decision of this Court in W.P.No.22106(W) of 2010, counsel for the petitioner has prayed for leave to withdraw this petition so that the petitioner may approach the appropriate Court on the cause of action on which this petition has been brought.

After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to allow the oral prayer for withdrawal.

For these reasons, I allow the prayer. This petition is dismissed. No costs. Certified xerox.

(Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J) sb

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)