ORDER Narendra Nath Tiwari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the orders dated 9th March, 2004, 6th December, 2004 and 11th May, 2007, contained in Annexures-13, 13/Aand 15, respectively, passed by the respondents, whereby the petitioner has been asked to vacate the premises i.e. land and building for which the licence was granted to run the school. 2. It has been stated that in the year 1991, there was an agreement of licence between Railways and Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur Division, Ranchi, whereby licence was given to run and maintain the school in the name of Shiksha Niketan over the land of the Railways. The said licence expired in the year 2001. The Railways, thereafter, had taken a decision for renewal for further ten years upto 2011. subject to approval of the Ministry of Railways. However, the same could not materialise and further agreement was executed for renewal of licence. 3. By letter dated 9th March, 2004, notice was given by the Divisional Railway Manager addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, asking to vacate the land and building of the Railways, as they require the same for the purpose of Divisional Office, recently opened at Ranchi. 4. The Principal of the said School approached the concerned authority by filing representation through the Regional Deputy Director of Education requesting for renewal of the licence, as decided earlier, but the same was not heeded upon. Again another notice dated 6th December, 2006 was issued to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for vacating the premises. In the said notice, the Railways have also asked the Regional Deputy Director of Education to deposit the occupation fee for the period 2003 to 2006. It has been stated that the petitioner deposited the said occupation fee, as demanded by the Railways, but again another notice has been issued to the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 11th May, 2007 asking to vacate the land and building of the Railways. 5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the said notices, as contained in Annexures-13, 13/A and 15. 6. It has been stated that once the Railway had taken a decision for allowing the said School to run for further ten years, the subsequent notice asking for eviction is arbitrary and unjust and the same are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 6. It has been stated that once the Railway had taken a decision for allowing the said School to run for further ten years, the subsequent notice asking for eviction is arbitrary and unjust and the same are liable to be quashed by this Hon'ble Court. 7. The Railways as well as the State respondents have contested the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit filed by the Railway, it has been, inter alia, contended that the licence was granted in the name of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner has no locus standi to claim any right in respect of the said licence. This writ petition filed by the School is not maintainable. The agreement was executed with clear understanding that the State will take over and manage the said School, which is a private school. But the same was not taken over so far. 8. It has been stated that the decision was, then, taken for renewal of the licence as the Railways did not require the land for its own purpose. Now. since the Divisional Office of the Railways has been opened, it requires the land, office and staff. No agreement was, therefore, executed for extension of the period of licence and notices were issued for vacating the said premises. 9. Since the period of licence already expired and the licence being in the name of Regional Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notices. The building has become dilapidated and is highly unsafe for the children and others. The Divisional Engineer, Ranchi has. thus, decided to demolish the structure of the building before it could harm or endanger any human life. The notices are thus not at all arbitrary and unjust, as has been alleged by the petitioner. 10. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, it has been stated that the petitioner-school is private and the Government has no concern. The Government of Jharkhand or its officers would not be a party to any agreement with the Railways in respect of the said land and premises. It is upto the Railways to extend the period of agreement with the School, if so decided. The matter of renewal is between the management of the school and Railways Authority. 11. The Government of Jharkhand or its officers would not be a party to any agreement with the Railways in respect of the said land and premises. It is upto the Railways to extend the period of agreement with the School, if so decided. The matter of renewal is between the management of the school and Railways Authority. 11. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials brought on record. On perusal of the licence, it is evident that the petitioner is not party to the licence. The agreement for licence was between the Railways Administration and Regional Deputy Director of Education. The said licence was granted on clear term that if the said land and the building are required by the Railway, the licensee shall not be entitled to invoke its right and the land and building has to be vacated on three months' notice. 12. The period of licence expired in 2001. It appears from annexures earlier that there was a decision for further renewal of licence and the same was approved by the Ministry of Railway. In that view the licence was to be renewed in favour of the licensee, namely, Regional Deputy Director of Education. In his affidavit, the Regional Deputy Director of Education clearly refused to be a party to such renewal agreement with the Railway. The petitioner obviously has got no locus standi for demanding renewal of the agreement. The writ petition in that view has got no merit and is fit to be dismissed. 13. However, it has been admitted by the respondents that the petitioner has been running the school on the basis of the said agreement of licence entered into between the Railways and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Ranchi and hundreds of students are still studying in the school. Sudden eviction in the mid educational session may cause harm and disturbance to the students for their no fault. Considering the same, the Railways should have given reasonable time to the petitioner for vacating the land and building on humanitarian ground, taking into consideration of the future of the students, so that the Management of the School may get time to make alternative arrangement to shift the school or the students/guardians may have opportunity to shift to some other schools in the beginning of the next academic session. 14. 14. In that view, though this Court refrains from interfering with the impugned notices, yet considering the future of the large number of students, it is directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioner till the end of the present academic session, which, as informed, is up to 30th June, 2008. 15. With the aforesaid observations and direction, this writ petition is disposed of. 16. No costs.