JUDGMENT 1. INSTEAD of hearing the stay application, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties we have taken the appeal itself for final disposal by treating the appeal as on day's list. 2. THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 1st July, 2009 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition subject to certain observations. Appellant No. 1 is a trade union espousing the cause of persons, who are interested in working for gain at the railway station, particularly Howrah Railway Station by carrying luggage, goods and articles of the passengers traveling by trains leaving or reaching Howrah Railway Station. Since the Superintendent of Railway Police and his subordinates, such as Deputy Security Commandants, RPF of the Eastern Railway and South Eastern Railway did not permit the members of the appellant-union to work for gain in the above manner, the appellant union preferred a writ petition giving rise to the present appeal, praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the members of the appellant-union to enter the Howrah Railway Station/compound for continuation of their occupation as porters with luggage/articles/goods of the railway passengers and for ancillary relief’s. 3. THE learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the members of the appellant-union are not licensed porters and, therefore, they have no right to function as railway porters nor be entitled to enter the Howrah Station for the purpose of rendering services of porters. While dismissing the writ petition on the above ground, the learned Single Judge also observed that the order will not prevent the members of the union from applying in accordance with law, to be licensed porters at the Howrah Station. 4. AT the first hearing of this appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant- union had made a grievance that the respondent- authorities had not declared any policy or guidelines for making applications to be licensed porters at the Howrah Railway Station and that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Howrah and Public Information Officer, under the Right to Information Act, gave reply dated 6th January, 2010 (in response to the appellant's representation dated 8th December, 2009) which is as under: "Item-1 The daily average passenger figure using Howrah Station is 6,00,040 (approx) figure. Item-2 1532 (one thousand five hundred thirty two) license have been issued to the licensed porter (Lall Collie) at Howrah station. Item-2 1532 (one thousand five hundred thirty two) license have been issued to the licensed porter (Lall Collie) at Howrah station. Item-3 There is no any notification for fresh engagement of license porter through open market. Hence there is no question for any last date of granting license. Item-4 There is no provision for renewal of license of licensee. Item-5 As per provision of Indian Railway Comml. Manual, licensed porters are engaged by the Railway Administration for carrying passenger luggage within the station limits on payment of prescribed porter age charges. The above reply is based on records available with this office. (emphasis supplied) The appellants filed a supplementary affidavit dated 2nd February, 2010 producing the above reply and in opposition thereto, respondent No. 8, i.e. the Deputy Commandant, R.P.F. Eastern Railways filed affidavit dated 3rd March, 2010. The stand reflected in the said affidavit-in-opposition is as under: "1. There is no system of renewal of license badge of license porter. License badge is awarded to the license porter because of their work. License remains valid till the death of the licensed porter or till he becomes invalid, old or very sick, thereafter license is transferred to his son or near relative." 5. IT is admitted that sometimes licensed porters are also engaged as gangman, trackman or employed in other jobs under the railways when they are absorbed as railway employees, but sometimes persons who are so employed are also permitted to go back as licensed porters. The circular dated January 13, 2010 to that effect is also produced with the affidavit-in-opposition. The respondents have also placed on record the circular dated 17th April, 2008 of the Chief Commercial Manager of the Eastern Railway containing the procedure for engagement of licensed porters which provides for eligibility criteria and also the composition of the selection committee and the procedure for selection. 6. THE above circular also refers to the Railway Board Circular No. 2006/ TG. 11/1010/ 18/Policy/LP dated 22.12.2006 communicating the procedure for engagement of licensed porters. 6. THE above circular also refers to the Railway Board Circular No. 2006/ TG. 11/1010/ 18/Policy/LP dated 22.12.2006 communicating the procedure for engagement of licensed porters. The grievance of the appellants, however, is that in the last about 50 to 59 years the respondents have not issued any advertisement inviting applications for issuance of porters licenses because the respondents have been permitting the persons who were initially granted license as porters in the year 1950-51 to transfer the license of porters to their sons and their relatives and thereby perpetuating their monopoly for all practical purposes and prohibiting thousands of eligible persons from being considered for issuance of porters licenses. It is also pointed out apart from the relatives of dead licensees being given the benefit of transfer of licence. Even, the relatives of those licensees who were absorbed as employees of the railways are also allowed to work as licensed porters, even though there is no policy of transfer of such licensees. 7. LEARNED Counsel for the railways, Mrs. Sanghamitra Nandy has opposed the appeal and submitted that the writ petition was merely filed for writ of mandamus to direct the authorities to permit the members of the appellant-union to work as porters and the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition as the members of the appellant-union do not possess license as porters. It is submitted that on the basis of the subsequent replies received by the union in response to the query under the Right to Information Act, the appellants cannot be permitted to build up a new case and seek relief’s which they never sought in the writ petition. 8. HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, we have noticed that the respondent-authorities have not controverted the following specific averments and submissions made by the appellants in paragraph 12 of their supplementary affidavit: "12. From the tenor and contents of the said documents it can be readily inferred that for more than a period of 59 years there have not been any selection for engagement of such licensed porters in the railway stations including the Howrah Railway Station ........... From the tenor and contents of the said documents it can be readily inferred that for more than a period of 59 years there have not been any selection for engagement of such licensed porters in the railway stations including the Howrah Railway Station ........... as a consequent corollary it may be logically stated that as there is admittedly no provision of renewal of licence to the porters once issued, most of the licensees, as can be calculated, can be deemed to have attained the ages of 80 to 100 years and' it can further be assumed that most of them have died in the meantime but it is a mystery that the self-same token/license issued more than 59 years back is still being used by certain persons posing themselves as porters who are hardly 25 to 30 years of age even in such an inevitable eventuality the Railway administration is looking the other way and cannot face the reality of the situation." As regards the averments made in paragraph 13 of the supplementary affidavit that about 75% licensed porters of Howrah Station have already been absorbed as Gangmen of the Railways and they have already left the occupation of railway porters and that for the remaining 25% porters, notices have already been given for their absorption as Railway Gangmen and they were on the verge of leaving the railway porters, the respondents have merely referred to the recent circular dated 13th January, 2010 giving an option to the recently recruited Gangmen to go back as licensed porters. However, the fact remains that no dispute is raised about the appellants' case that persons who were initially granted the licence in the year 1950-51 have attained the age of 80 to 100 years or have died but their licences are allowed by the authorities to be used by other persons hardly 22/30 years of age to act as porters. The representations made since 1981 to allow persons outside the closed community of licensed porters (who were issued licences in 1950-51 and their relatives and transferees) to obtain porters' licence were not heeded to till 22nd December, 2006 when the Railway Board issued the circular, communicating the procedure for engagement of licensed porters. 9. The representations made since 1981 to allow persons outside the closed community of licensed porters (who were issued licences in 1950-51 and their relatives and transferees) to obtain porters' licence were not heeded to till 22nd December, 2006 when the Railway Board issued the circular, communicating the procedure for engagement of licensed porters. 9. FROM a fair reading of the pleadings of the parties, it appears that for the last more than 55 years, the Eastern Railways, and South Eastern Railways, have not issued any advertisement inviting applications for obtaining license as porters, even after the Railway Board had issued circular dated 22nd December, 2006 communicating the procedure for engagement of licensed porters. In this state of affairs, it would not be just and proper to dismiss the appeal merely on the ground that the appellants are relying on recently acquired information and that the relief’s sought for at the hearing of the appeal are not the same relief which were prayed for in the writ petition. 10. IN the facts and circumstances of the case as highlighted hereinabove, we are of the view that interests of justice would be served, if the appeal is disposed of in terms of the following directions :- (i) The Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah and Divisional Railway Manager, South Eastern Railway, (respondent Nos. 5 and 6 herein) shall consider the total number of persons who are required to work as licensed porters at Howrah Railway Station having regard to the daily average passengers using Howrah Railway Station (six lakhs approximately) and other relevant factors. (This number may be referred to as "A" for the purpose of explaining implementation of these directions). (ii) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall, thereafter, consider the particulars of the persons who have been working as licensed porters since prior to 22nd December, 2006. (This number may be referred to as "B") (iii) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall then calculate the number of vacancies to be advertised. ("A" minus "B") (iv) Persons in whose favour licences of porters were transferred after 22nd December, 2006, shall not be recognized as licensed porters after 6 months from today (i.e., after 30th September, 2010). IN the meantime, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall then calculate the number of vacancies to be advertised. ("A" minus "B") (iv) Persons in whose favour licences of porters were transferred after 22nd December, 2006, shall not be recognized as licensed porters after 6 months from today (i.e., after 30th September, 2010). IN the meantime, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 shall, within six weeks from today, issue a public advertisement inviting applications for obtaining license as porters at the Howrah Railway Station and complete the selection procedure within six months from today. (v) The advertisement shall specifically indicate the eligibility criteria and also indicate that the persons who presently claim to possess the license as porters, but in whose favour licences were transferred after 22nd December, 2006 shall be considered in accordance with the relevant rules/guidelines. The appeal is disposed of in terms of the above directions. 11. SINCE the appeal is disposed of, the connected application for stay has become in fructuous and the same is also disposed of. 12. PHOTOSTAT certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Counsel for the parties within two weeks from the date of the application.