Kumariah Vadivel Vs. Union of India and ors. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1133970
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided OnMar-13-2014
JudgeARINDAM SINHA
AppellantKumariah Vadivel
RespondentUnion of India and ors.
Excerpt:
order sheet wp no.1573 of 1996 in the high court at calcutta constitutional writ jurisdiction original side kumariah vadivel versus union of india & ors.before: the hon'ble justice arindam sinha date : 13th march, 2014. appearance: mr.h.b.dubey, adv.mr.mukesh mishra, adv.for the petitioner. mr.d.k.singh, adv.for the respondent nos.4 and 5. mr.sanajit kumar ghosh, adv.for the respondent nos.1, 2,3 and 6. the court :- the petitioner applied to the eastern and south eastern railways authorities for grant of licence under rule 4 of the authorization of rail travellers’ service agents rules, 1985. by the judgment rendered in travellers’ service agents association and others versus union of india and others reported in 1985 (supp.) supreme court cases 105, the rules that had been proposed before the hon’ble supreme court were directed to be made statutory rules. the petitioner’s grievance is that his application made to the eastern railway was rejected by intimation dated 3rd june, 1996 which has been challenged and that his application dated 18th december, 1995 made before the south eastern railways authorities has been kept pending. mr.sanajit kumar ghosh, appearing on behalf of the eastern railway, submits that with the opening of more and more satellite reservation offices in kolkata area, there has been a change in business policy and agencies are not required by the eastern railways. hence, the rejection was in order. on behalf of the south eastern railway it is confirmed that the application made by the writ petitioner is still pending. mr.dube on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client has complied with the said rules in making his application and the rejection cannot be sustained on reasons that have no connection with such rules. he hands up a copy of the order dated 27th september, 2013, whereby the hon’ble supreme court in view of the submissions made by the railway authorities, that change in circumstances required amendment of the rules, permitted the said authorities to change/amend the rules because they had been framed in 1985 and after 1985 there has been substantial changes in the system under which the indian railways work. further and other reasons were recorded in that judgment regarding such permission being granted for the rules being changed/amended. mr.dube submits that, however, such rules remain unaltered and in the circumstances the concerned railways authorities are bound to consider his application in terms of the said rules which has not been done either by the eastern railways or by the south eastern railways authorities. the reasons cited for the rejection by eastern railways as intimated by the letter dated 3rd june, 1996 is the same reason which was cited before the hon’ble supreme court by the authorities seeking permission to change/amend the said rules. they have obtained such permission but it appears that the rules remain unchanged as on date. in the circumstances it appears that the applications made by the petitioner though being in compliance of the said rules, the rejection by eastern railways does not appear to be in terms of rule 4(2) of the said rules. it does not appear that any enquiry was made regarding the application made before it by the writ petitioner by reason of which the same was refused. on the contrary, the reason given was a change in the circumstances relating to the business of selling the railways tickets which cannot be sustained in relation to the said rules. hence, the said rejection by the letter dated 3rd june, 1996 being annexure – ‘g’ to the writ petition is set aside. since the application made by the petitioner before the south eastern railways is still pending, consideration and disposal of the applications made by the petitioner before the said railway authorities be made in terms of the said rules within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order by the writ petitioner upon them. the writ petition is allowed. all parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings. (arindam sinha, j.) snn.
Judgment:

ORDER

SHEET WP No.1573 of 1996 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE KUMARIAH VADIVEL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA Date : 13th March, 2014.

Appearance: Mr.H.B.Dubey, Adv.Mr.Mukesh Mishra, Adv.For the petitioner.

Mr.D.K.Singh, Adv.For the respondent Nos.4 and 5.

Mr.Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Adv.For the respondent Nos.1, 2,3 and 6.

The Court :- The petitioner applied to the Eastern and South Eastern Railways Authorities for grant of licence under Rule 4 of the Authorization of Rail Travellers’ Service Agents Rules, 1985.

By the judgment rendered in Travellers’ Service Agents Association and Others versus Union of India and Others reported in 1985 (Supp.) Supreme Court Cases 105, the rules that had been proposed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court were directed to be made statutory rules.

The petitioner’s grievance is that his application made to the Eastern Railway was rejected by intimation dated 3rd June, 1996 which has been challenged and that his application dated 18th December, 1995 made before the South Eastern Railways Authorities has been kept pending.

Mr.Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, appearing on behalf of the Eastern Railway, submits that with the opening of more and more satellite reservation offices in Kolkata area, there has been a change in business policy and agencies are not required by the Eastern Railways.

Hence, the rejection was in order.

On behalf of the South Eastern Railway it is confirmed that the application made by the writ petitioner is still pending.

Mr.Dube on behalf of the petitioner submits that his client has complied with the said rules in making his application and the rejection cannot be sustained on reasons that have no connection with such rules.

He hands up a copy of the order dated 27th September, 2013, whereby the Hon’ble Supreme Court in view of the submissions made by the Railway Authorities, that change in circumstances required amendment of the rules, permitted the said Authorities to change/amend the Rules because they had been framed in 1985 and after 1985 there has been substantial changes in the system under which the Indian Railways work.

Further and other reasons were recorded in that judgment regarding such permission being granted for the rules being changed/amended.

Mr.Dube submits that, however, such rules remain unaltered and in the circumstances the concerned Railways Authorities are bound to consider his application in terms of the said Rules which has not been done either by the Eastern Railways or by the South Eastern Railways Authorities.

The reasons cited for the rejection by Eastern Railways as intimated by the letter dated 3rd June, 1996 is the same reason which was cited before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by the Authorities seeking permission to change/amend the said rules.

They have obtained such permission but it appears that the Rules remain unchanged as on date.

In the circumstances it appears that the applications made by the petitioner though being in compliance of the said Rules, the rejection by Eastern Railways does not appear to be in terms of Rule 4(2) of the said rules.

It does not appear that any enquiry was made regarding the application made before it by the writ petitioner by reason of which the same was refused.

On the contrary, the reason given was a change in the circumstances relating to the business of selling the Railways tickets which cannot be sustained in relation to the said rules.

Hence, the said rejection by the letter dated 3rd June, 1996 being Annexure – ‘G’ to the writ petition is set aside.

Since the application made by the petitioner before the South Eastern Railways is still pending, consideration and disposal of the applications made by the petitioner before the said Railway Authorities be made in terms of the said rules within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order by the writ petitioner upon them.

The writ petition is allowed.

All parties are to act on a signed photocopy of this order on the usual undertakings.

(ARINDAM SINHA, J.) snn.