Gujarat High Court
Shaikh @ Ghanchi Abdulhamid Abdulkarim vs Senior Dcm, Railway Ahmedabad Division on 21 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/4428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4428 of 2020
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
==========================================================
SHAIKH @ GHANCHI ABDULHAMID ABDULKARIM
Versus
SENIOR DCM, RAILWAY AHMEDABAD DIVISION
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR ATIT D THAKORE(5290) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR RAHUL D PATEL FOR MS ARCHANA U AMIN(2462) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
PRACHCHHAK
Date : 21/04/2026
JUDGMENT
1. RULE returnable forthwith. Ms. Archana Amin, learned counsel for the respondent waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent. With the consent of both the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing today.
2. The present petition is the filed by the petitioner under Articles 12,14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India read with the provisions of Railway Act seeking following reliefs:
"A ) This Honourable Court may be pleased to admit and allow this petition;
B) This Honourable Court may be pleased to issue appropriate writ, order or direction by directing the respondent authority to Page 1 of 5 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:46:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined consider the application of the petitioner and transfer the license (Taj Ismail- Jijaji) bearing buckle No.1838 in favour of the petitioner, in the interest of justice.
(BB) Your Lordships may be pleased to quash and set aside the Commercial Circular issued by the Railway Board being No.62/2009 dated 29.10.2009 and Board's letter No.85/TG-(ii)/1010/08/License Badge/ Policy dated 9.12.1988, in the interest of justice.
C) Pending admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent to allow the present petitioner to work as a porter at Ahmedabad Railway Station, in the interest of justice.
D) Grant such other and further reliefs as may be deemed fit, just and proper in the interest of justice and fairness of things."
3. Brief facts giving rise to the present petition that the brother in law (Jijaji) of the petitioner i.e. Taj Ismail was working as a porter in Kalupur Railway Station and having license bearing buckle No.1838 to carry out his duty as License Porter in the Railway Station. That, the brother in law of the petitioner was aged about 53 years and was unable to do his duty as Licence Porter and Unfit certificate was also given by the Senior Division Medical Officer of Western Railway Health Unit, Ahmedabad. That, he had made an application before the respondent on 25.7.2007 to transfer his buckle No.1838 in the name of the petitioner. That, the sister of the petitioner and the brother in law of the petitioner have passed away. That, the petitioner made another application to the respondent authority for the transfer of buckle no. 1838 but the same was rejected by the respondent vide communication dated 25.1.2013.
3.1 Thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing writ petition being Special Civil Application No.8819 of 2013 which came to be disposed of vide order dated 1.8.2013 by permitting the petitioner to pursue his application and Page 2 of 5 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:46:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined representation before the respondent authority with regard to doubts raised about the entry of the name of the petitioner in the Ration Card. That, pursuant to the order dated 1.8.2013, the petitioner made an application and filed an affidavit along with all documents clarifying the facts. That, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court vide SCA No.3410 of 2016 which was allowed vide order dated 14.3.2019 and directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner within four weeks. That, the respondent rejected the application of the petitioner vide communication/order dated 22.4.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
4. Heard Mr. Atit Thakore, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rahul Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Archana Amin, learned counsel for the respondent.
5. Learned counsel Mr. Thakore has submitted that the impugned communication/order passed by the respondent authority is illegal, unjust, arbitrary, erroneous and contrary to the facts and material on record and the provisions of the Act and therefore, is required to be quashed and set aside. He has submitted that as per clause 2 of the policy of the respondent (at page 50) dated 09.12.1988, the licensed porter's badge can be transferred in favour of the near relatives in the event of the porter's death or when he becomes very old, infirm or very sick and is not able to carry out his duties properly. He has submitted that the son will include the adopted son, near relatives will include brother or brother's son or wife's brother and since the petitioner is the brother of the wife of Taj Ismail, therefore, he is entitled to get the license porter's badge in his favour to do the work of Hamal at the Kalupur Railway Station, Ahmedabad. Over and above the contentions raised in the memo of petition, the learned counsel has urged that the petition deserves to be allowed.
Page 3 of 5 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:46:11 IST 2026NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined
6. As against that, Mr. Patel, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the original buckle holder namely Taj Ismail passed away long back and since then the buckle number 1838 allotted to the license porter has been in the custody of the Railway Administration. He has submitted that the present petition suffers from suppression of material facts of filing false affidavits by the petitioner just to get the license in his name. He has submitted that the petitioner himself had made contradictory statements in his two different applications dated 14.02.2008 as well as 02.04.2009 as in one application he had mentioned that he had no ration card and in the subsequent application, he had produced his ration card to show his address. He has submitted that the claim of the petitioner that he was a near relative of original buckle holder Taj Ismail was not accepted by the respondent authority as no sufficient proof was produced to that effect and he was found to be changing his stance every time before the respondent authority while applying for transfer of the badge. He has submitted that the earlier application of the petitioner for transfer of the buckle has been rejected as the same was not fulfilling the parameters of 9/12/1988 policy and the petitioner has not taken any reliable stand so far as the family of the original buckle holder is concerned and thus the very object of the transfer policy is frustrated. He has submitted that the transfer of buckle is permissible provided all the parameters of transfer policy of 9/12/1988 as well as 29/10/2009 are fulfilled. He has urged that the present petition requires to be dismissed.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and have considered the facts of the petition. It appears that the petitioner has relied on the policy of the respondent authority dated 09.12.1988 regarding transfer of a license badge and in absence of son, the porter can transfer license badge to his near relative which includes the brother or brother's son or wife's Page 4 of 5 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:46:11 IST 2026 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/4428/2020 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/04/2026 undefined brother and hence, the petitioner has contended that being the wife's brother, he is entitled to such transfer of the license badge. Learned counsel for the respondent has categorically denied that the petitioner is a near relative of Taj Ismail as no sufficient proof was produced and he repeatedly shifted his stance before the respondent authority while applying for transfer of the badge. Therefore, under such circumstances, the respondent authority decided the petitioner's application in accordance with the policy prevailing at the time and the affidavit in reply filed by the respondent has clarified this. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is found to be devoid of any merits and hence, deserves to be dismissed.
8. In the result, the petition is hereby dismissed. Rule is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs.
(HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) ANUSRI Page 5 of 5 Uploaded by ANUSRI VASU(HC02352) on Mon Apr 27 2026 Downloaded on : Mon Apr 27 21:46:11 IST 2026