V RAMAKRISHNA Vs. N SAROJINI
LAWS(APH)-1992-4-10
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on April 21,1992

V.RAMAKRISHNA Appellant
VERSUS
N.SAROJINI Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SUBRAMNANIAN V. SINNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
SEIN DAS V. LAKHAJEE [REFERRED TO]
BIVA BANERJEE V. MANMATHA NATH [REFERRED TO]
MAHMAD ALI V. AKRAM ALI [REFERRED TO]
RAMCHAND DEAD VS. THAKUR JANKI BALLABHJI MAHARAJ [REFERRED TO]
PENDELA NARASIMHAM VS. PENDELA VENKATA NARASIMHAM [REFERRED TO]
REGIONAL DIRECTOR EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION VS. HYDERABAD ASBESTOS CEMENT PRODUCTS LTD [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

SINGARENI COLLIERIES COMPANY LTD VS. P V D RAMA KOTESWARA RAO [LAWS(APH)-1996-9-141] [REFERRED TO]
DASARI UMA MAHESWARA RAO VS. SOMASI VENKATA RAMACHANDRA MURTHY [LAWS(APH)-2002-9-7] [REFERRED TO]
M KISHORE KUMAR VS. MOHAMMAD AKBAR SIDDIQUI [LAWS(APH)-1993-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
PADAMATI VEERASWAMY VS. ANKEM NACHARAMMA [LAWS(APH)-2005-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
KURAPATI BANGARAIAH VS. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [LAWS(APH)-2014-6-192] [REFERRED TO]
BHATINDA IMPROVEMENT TRUST VS. MADAN LAL AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-2016-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
RUCHI KANDPAL VS. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND [LAWS(UTN)-2019-11-9] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.Subhashan Reddy, J. - (1.)This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 10-9-1991 passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No. 9951/90 wherein the writ appellant who was the 4th respondent in the writ petition was directed to deposit Rs. 2,000.00 per month with effect from 1-8- 1990, arrears payable by the end of the year 1991, and the current amounts by 15th day of succeeding month. The writ petition was filed by the 1st respondent herein seeking renewal of licence enabling her to continue to run the stall on railway platform No. 5 at Vijayawada Railway Station. We shall refer to the parties as they are arrayed in this writ appeal.
(2.)One Mr. V. Srinivas Rao was running a stall at Platform No. 5 of Vijayawada Railway Station since 1965 till his death on 14-3-1981. His wife pre-deceased him. He left behind him, 5 daughters and a son and of the said children, three daughters were majors and two daughters, namely, Vijayalakshmi and Varalakshmi and the last one, a son by name Prasad, were minors. The eldest daughter Sarojini has filed the writ petition seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus for renewing the licence in her name, and it is a fact that on her application for transfer of licence consequent on the death of her father, the said transfer was in fact made by the railway authorities in the year 1981 soon after the death of V. Srinivas Rao.
(3.)The grant of licences including renewals thereof is guided by the executive instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to time. The guidelines dated 1-8- 1978 contained under Railway Board's proceedings Nos. 78-TG 1II/670/A1 and 7/OTC/3/670/A, dated 28-7-1978 and 11-7- 1979 respectively were relied upon for the said transfer of licence. The said circulars contemplated the transfer of licence to the legal representatives of the licencees in the event of death and it is on humane consideration and with an avowed object of affording an opportunity and providing livelihood to the dependants of the deceased contractor to work, earn and live. These guidelines held the field when V. Srinivas Rao died and as such, on the application of the 1 st respondent for the issuance of licence in the name of herself and her minor brother, V. Prasad, the railway authorities had granted the same and by the said act of transfer of licence, the said two persons, became the licencees and it was not subject to re-opening on the basis of any other plea. Even after the expiry of unexpired period of licence held by V. Srinivas Rao in the year 1981, for which the licence was transferred in the name of the 1st respondent and her minor brother, the renewal was granted independently for a period of 3 years and again after the expiry of the said period of 3 years, it was renewed to be in force till 31-3-1988. But, an unfortunate event had occurred on the death of the 1st respondent's minor brother, Prasad, in June, 1985. Manipulations were made to incorporate the name of the appellant in place of the said deceased Prasad along with the name of the 1st respondent and for this substitution of name of.the appellant, there are no valid proceedings and per se, it was illegal. It is stated that for the purpose of said substitution, a letter was produced by tbe appellant and his father purporting to have been signed and issued by the 1st respondent consenting for such a substitution and on coming to know about the same, the 1st respondent has launched prosecution and the criminal proceedings are pending adjudication in C. C. No. 104/88 on the file of 10th Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.