IMRAN AHMED Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appears to be a hard case, where the Court is unable to grant relief to the petitioner in view of the existing Catering Policy of the Railway Board.

(2.) The petitioner's grandfather was granted a licence to vend articles on a railway platform in 1985. After the expiry of the petitioner's grandfather, the railways granted licence in favour of the petitioner's father. According to Mr. Guchhait, learned advocate for the petitioner, the licence agreement did not contain any clause regarding expiry thereof. If Mr. Guchhait's sub mission is accepted, it can reasonably be inferred that the petitioner's father would continue to vend articles during his lifetime. The petitioner's father passed away in 2011. No separate licence agreement was executed by and between the railways and the petitioner; yet, the petitioner continued to vend articles. The railways called upon the petitioner to clear the outstanding licence fees left behind by his father. The direction was not complied with resulting in seizure of the trolley together with the articles, which the petitioner was vending. Feeling aggrieved by such seizure, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Ghosh, learned advocate for the railways, was requested to obtain instructions as to whether the petitioner could be allowed to vend articles if he clears the outstanding licence fees. He has referred to Clause 21 of the Catering Policy.