Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Gujarat High Court

Hc And Sons­A Firm Run By Legal Heirs Of vs Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & ... on 29 January, 2016

Author: R.M.Chhaya

Bench: R.M.Chhaya

                 C/SCA/16889/2014                                           ORDER



               IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION  NO. 16889 of 2014
         ===================================================
               HC AND SONS­A FIRM RUN BY LEGAL HEIRS OF 
                       DECEASED....Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
         SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER & 3....Respondent(s)
         ===================================================
         Appearance:
         MR ASIT B JOSHI, ADVOCATE for Petitioner Nos.1­1.3
         MS ARCHANA U AMIN, ADVOCATE for Respondent Nos.1­4
         ===================================================
               CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.M.CHHAYA
                           Date : 29/01/2016
                              ORAL ORDER

(1) Heard learned counsel for respective parties. 

(2) By way of this petition under Article 226 of the  Constitution   of   India,   the  petitioners  have  challenged   order   dated   19.01.2013   passed   by  respondent   No.3   authority  whereby   the  petitioners'   use   to   carry   on   their   business   of  refreshment   stalls   for   selling   sweets,   namkin,  tea,   etc.   at   Surendranagar   Railway   Station   at  Platform No.1 has been discontinued. By amended  prayer   the  petitioners   have   also   prayed   for  direction   directing   the  respondent   authorities  to maintain status­quo.

(3) Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners   has   taken  this   Court   through   the   factual   matrix   arising  out   of   this   petition   as   well   as   the   impugned  order. It is no doubt true that in response to  the   notice   issued   by   this   Court   the  respondent  authorities  have   filed   affidavit­in­reply,   to  which   affidavit­in­rejoinder   is   filed   by   the  Page 1 of 4 HC-NIC Page 1 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 30 01:47:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/16889/2014 ORDER petitioners  and   further   affidavit   by   affidavit­ in­sur­rejoinder is also filed by the respondent  authorities  and   the   fact   stated   therein   are  denied   by   the  petitioners   by   way   of   filing  further   affidavit   in   form   of   affidavit­in­sur­ sur­rejoinder.

(4) Learned   advocate   for   the   petitioners,   however,  candidly submitted that case of the  petitioners  is   covered   by   common   order   dated   22.07.2013  passed   by   Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the  case of Niranjanswarup Ratanlal Jain Vs. Western  Railway   &   Ors.,   in   SCA   No.11563/13   and   cognate  matter and a similar view has also been taken by  this   Court   in   SCA   No.3834/15  vide   order   dated  28.09.2015. 

(5) Division   Bench   of   this   Court   in   the   aforesaid  common   order   at   Paragraph   Nos.8­9   has   observed  thus:

"8. Hence, it is directed that if the petitioner gives an undertaking  within   one   week   from   today   to   the   following   condition,   he   shall   be  allowed to continue until the new party is given contract pursuant to  the tender which is referred to in the petition.
(1) The petitioner shall not create any right or equity on account  of   his   continuation   of   running   the   stall   until   new   party   is   given  contract pursuant to the tender.
(2) He shall remove all his belonging and vacate the premises of the  stall/refreshment   centre/room   within   one   week   from   the   intimation   so  given by the Railway administration.
(3) After the undertaking, the Railway administration shall given one  week notice to the petitioner in advance for vacating that the contract  is given to the new party as per the tender.

9. It is observed that in the event the petitioner fails to vacate as  per   the   undertaking   given   before   this   Court,   Railway   administration  shall be at the liberty to get the premises vacated with the help of  the police force and that too at the cost of the petitioner."

Page 2 of 4

HC-NIC Page 2 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 30 01:47:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/16889/2014 ORDER (6) This Court has also taken a similar view and has  given   similar   directions   to   the  respondent  railway   authorities   in   the   aforesaid   SCA  No.3834/15. Learned advocate for the petitioners  therefore   submitted   that   following   the   said  judgment,   the  petitioners   do   not   invite   any  further   reasons,   however,   similar   directions   be  issued   to   the   authorities   at   least   for   re­ opening of two stalls, as per the current policy  which is undertaken by the railway authorities.

(7) Learned advocate for the respondent authorities,  on   instructions,   states   that   as   far   as   the  trolleys   are   concerned,   the   same   cannot   be  permitted   to   run.   It   was   contended   that   the  stalls   have   to   be   now   dealt   with   as   per   the  policy.

(8) Considering   the   aforesaid   two   orders,  without  entering into the merits and reasons, for which  this petition is not liable to be entertained as  prayed for, following the directions of Division  Bench   in   the   case   of  Niranjanswarup   Ratanlal  Jain  (supra)  even   while   not   entertaining   this  petition, it is provided that if the petitioners  give an undertaking as provided in the aforesaid  order   passed   in   the   case   of   Niranjanswarup  Ratanlal   Jain  (supra)  (at   Paragraph   No.8   as  quoted   hereinabove),   the  petitioners   be  allowed  to   run   only   "ONE"   stall  in   question  until   new  party   is   given   contract   pursuant   to   the   tender  Page 3 of 4 HC-NIC Page 3 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 30 01:47:07 IST 2016 C/SCA/16889/2014 ORDER process that may be undertaken by the respondent  authorities,  as   provided   by   Division   Bench   of  this Court in the aforesaid Paragraph Nos.8­9 of  the   said   judgment.   Respondent   authorities  shall  permit   the  petitioners  to   run   only  ONE  stall,  for which originally licence was given in favour  of  the  petitioner­firm,   on   the  petitioners  filing undertaking, as provided in the aforesaid  Paragraph   No.8   of   the   said   judgment,   within   a  period of one week. It is further clarified that  in case of any breach of such undertaking by the  petitioners,   as   provided   in   the   aforesaid  Paragraph   No.8   of   the   said   judgment,   and   the  petitioners  fail to vacate the stall/premise as  per the undertaking given before this Court, it  would be open for  the respondent authorities  to  get   the   premise/stall   vacated   with   help   of   the  police   force   and   that   too   at   the   cost   of   the  petitioners. 

(9) It   is   further   provided   that   as   and   when   the  respondent  railway   authorities   initiate   tender  process, it would be open for the petitioners to  participate therein.

(10) Disposed   of   accordingly.  NOTICE   discharged.  No  costs. 

 Sd/­        [R.M.CHHAYA, J ] ***  Bhavesh­[pps]*   Page 4 of 4 HC-NIC Page 4 of 4 Created On Sat Jan 30 01:47:07 IST 2016