Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 26 (CAL)

HARADHAN BANDYOPADHYAY v. UNION OF INDIA

2005-01-17

PRATAP KUMAR RAY

body2005
PRATAP KUMAR RAY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD the learned Advocates appearing for the parties. ( 2 ) IN the instant writ application, it is the grievance of the petitioner that for engagement as Halt Contractor at the Dhaniakhali Halt Station in hbc section, the petitioner duly applied in terms of the Advertisement published by the Eastern Railway and upon being selected, the said Authority had issued a letter asking the petitioner to deposit Rs. 2,000/- as the Security money and to submit a Health Certificate for final processing of the same. This letter was issued on 1st July, 2003 by the Divisional Railway Manager, howrah, which is annexed at page 29 of the writ petition. The petitioner complied with all the conditions as stipulated therein in the said letter, namely, payment of Security money and submission of a Health Certificate. Despite such, since no appointment letter was issued engaging the petitioner as Halt contractor, the petitioner moved this writ application. However, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Railway Authorities has produced a report of the Superintendent of Police, D. I. B. , Hooghly to contend that as a result of confidential enquiry as conducted in view of the complaint lodged by local villagers duly recommended by one Sri Basudeb Acharaya a member of Parliament at Bankura, the respondent Railway Authorities accepted the said report, which became the basis for cancellation of the candidature of the petitioner as regards engagement as Halt Contractor. Xerox copy of the said report as placed before this Court be kept with the record. ( 3 ) FROM the said report it appears that the Superintendent of Police, d. I. B. , Hooghly by letter dated 5th November, 2003 vide Memo No. 7718/89-64 has categorically contended "no Criminal case was found against the subject in the district as per available record". Hence, it appears that the report could not be the basis of the impugned decision of the respondent authorities not to engage the petitioner as Halt Contractor. Furthermore, it appears from the Affidavit-in-Opposition and Supplementary Affidavit that one sri Basudeb Acharaya, a Member of Parliament, recommended to hold an enquiry on the allegation against petitioner as filed by local villagers as Halt contractor. Furthermore, it appears from the Affidavit-in-Opposition and Supplementary Affidavit that one sri Basudeb Acharaya, a Member of Parliament, recommended to hold an enquiry on the allegation against petitioner as filed by local villagers as Halt contractor. It appears that the respondent Railway Authorities acted in terms of the recommendation of the said Member of the Parliament and thereafter on holding an enquiry intended not to engage the petitioner as Halt Contractor though the petitioner satisfied all the conditions as stipulated in the advertisement. Furthermore in the Advertisement and in the regulation itself there is no provision that if any gentleman is involved in a civil litigation with his tenant, the man would be debarred from having engagement as Halt contractor, which is only substantial part of the said report. Hence, it appears that the respondent Railway Authorities on the basis of the dictation and whims of another gentleman, as referred to, acted and has taken arbitrary decision. Hence decision cancelling selection of petitioner is hereby set aside and quashed. ( 4 ) IN that view of the matter, this writ petition is allowed. ( 5 ) THE respondent Railway Authorities are therefore, directed to issue engagement letter and to enter into agreement with the petitioner within two weeks from this date. ( 6 ) SINCE the respondent Railway Authorities without any lawful excuse have cancelled such engagement of the petitioner as Halt Contractor and that too on the basis of a letter of the Member of Parliament who has no jurisdiction to interfere with the functions of the respondent authorities regarding engagement of Halt Contractor, the petitioner is legally entitled to get costs of this proceeding. Hence, costs of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) is granted which is to be paid by the respondent Railway Authorities to the petitioner within two weeks from date. ( 7 ) HOWEVER, this amount of costs could be realized by the respondent railway Authorities from the concerned Officer who is responsible in delaying the matter by considering that the letter of one Sri Basudeb Acharaya, a member of Parliament, had evolve a cause of action for causing the investigation. ( 8 ) SINCE this order has been passed in presence of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent Railway Authorities, the petitioner need not communicate this order.