Judgment J.C. Upadhyaya, J.—Rule. Learned Counsel, Mr. Karnavat waives service for respondent – Western Railway pursuant to earlier order of notice dated 25.11.2010. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the matter and with the consent of the Learned Counsel representing both sides, the petition is taken-up for final hearing. 3. The petitioner filed the petition seeking following reliefs; “a. Issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order in the nature of writ directing the Respondent to transfer his buckle/badge No. 2245/373 into the name of Mukesh, the Petitioner’s real son. b. Grant any other relief/s in favour of the Petitioner in the interest of justice.” 4. The petitioner is working as licensed porter at the railway station, Ahmedabad, having his buckle No. 2245/373. Since the petitioner attained the age of 60 years and the nature of work of porter is purely manual labour work, he was not able to work as porter and desired to transfer his buckle (license) in the name of his son – Mukesh, as per the policy of the respondent – Railway. The petitioner applied for transfer and the application was typed by some typist near the railway station. An affidavit in support of said application was also prepared. Since the petitioner is illiterate, therefore, in the application as well as in the affidavit, he had affixed his thumb impression. The contents of the application were never read-over to him. It is the say of the petitioner that his application was turned down by the respondent administration vide communication dated 5.11.2009. However, in said communication, no reason was assigned as to why his request for transfer was turned down. However, subsequently, the petitioner came to know that some incorrect averments were made in his application and in affidavit to the effect that his wife was not alive and that Mukesh in whose favour the petitioner intended to transfer his license was his only son. It is claimed by the petitioner that along with his application and affidavit for transfer of license, he had annexed the copy of his ration-card wherein the name of his wife as well as names of his two sons and three daughters were stated. It is, therefore, the say of the petitioner that he never intended to take any disadvantage of the mistake as the copy of his ration-card furnished complete details about his family. It is, therefore, the say of the petitioner that he never intended to take any disadvantage of the mistake as the copy of his ration-card furnished complete details about his family. However, the second request of the petitioner came to be turned down by communication dated 5.5.2010. Hence, this petition is filed seeking the relief as mentioned above. 5. Learned Counsel, Mr. Alvi, for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a poor labourer, doing his work as porter at the railway station. That the policy of the respondent railway regarding the transfer of license, contains three conditions, namely, in case license holder claims to be old, infirm or incapable of performing his duty as porter and upon furnishing medical certificate of a railway doctor, may request for transfer of his license to his son or if he has no son or son is not alive, to his near relative, and it is further provided in the policy that the licensed porter is supposed to be the sole earning member of the family and the person in whose favour the license is to be transferred, is physically fit to perform the duty. Learned counsel, Mr. Alvi, therefore, submitted that the bare reading of the policy annexed with this petition at Annexure-K suggests that the three requirements should be satisfied, and in the instant case, the petitioner had obtained the required medical certificates about his age and physical inability and about physical fitness of his son – Mukesh annexed at Annexure-D and Annexure-E, and in his affidavit on oath, he had stated that he is the sole breadwinner of the family. It is, therefore, submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Alvi that so far as the requirements laid down in the policy are concerned, no false or misleading averments were made by the petitioner in his application or in his affidavit. It is further submitted that if at all there was any malafide intention in the mind of the petitioner, he would not have annexed copy of the ration card along with his application seeking transfer of his license. It is, therefore, submitted that petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel, Mr. It is further submitted that if at all there was any malafide intention in the mind of the petitioner, he would not have annexed copy of the ration card along with his application seeking transfer of his license. It is, therefore, submitted that petition may be allowed. 6. Per contra, learned counsel, Mr. Karnavat, for the respondent – railway administration submitted that admittedly the petitioner had made false averments in his application as well as in his affidavit and, therefore, the administration was justified in rejecting the request of the petitioner for transfer of license. It is submitted that the said infirmity is still surviving and, therefore, petitioner, who has courage to file false affidavit before the administration cannot even expect sympathy from the railway administration. Learned Counsel, Mr. Karnavat, for the the Respondent – railway administration, therefore, opposed the petition. 7. Relevant part of the policy dated 9.12.1988 annexed at Annexure-K reads as under:— “2. It has now been decided that the porter’s licensed may be transferred to his son or, if he has no son of his son is not alive, to his near relative in the event of his death or when he becomes very old, infirm, or very sick and is not able to carry out his duties properly. The son will include the adopted son. Near relatives will include brother, or brother’s son, or wife’s brother. 3. The licensed porter who claims to be old, infirm or incapable of performing his duty as licensed porter due to serious deceases, should be medically examined by a railway doctor with a view to determining whether he is physically not fit. The medical certificate from a railway doctor alone should be taken as proof. 4. Before allowing such transfer of license, it should be ascertained that the porter was the sole earning member of the family. An affidavit produced by the licensed porter under the seal of a magistrate may be taken as adequate proof of the dependence of the family on licensed porter and the nature of relationship of the nominee. 5. The person in whose favour the license is transferred should be physically fit to perform the duty of licensed porter. This should also be certified by a railway doctor. 6. 5. The person in whose favour the license is transferred should be physically fit to perform the duty of licensed porter. This should also be certified by a railway doctor. 6. Action to transfer the license of a porter should be taken only when the above factors have been established to the entire satisfaction of the Railway.” 8. Thus, bare perusal of the policy suggests that the conditions laid down therein are required to be satisfied, namely, porter’s license is transferable to his son or if he has no son or his son is not alive, to his near relative provided the porter is infirm or very sick or because of his old age, he is unable to carry out his work, and in support thereof, medical certificate of a railway doctor is required and further the medical certificate about the fitness of the proposed transferee about the physical condition is produced. In the instant case, along with the application of transfer, the petitioner had annexed both the required medical certificates issued by a railway doctor. Initially his request was turned down by communication dated 5.11.2009 Annexure-F, and if Annexure-F is perused, no reason is assigned as to why his request for transfer was turned down. However, it appears that in his application and in his affidavit, he had stated that his wife had expired before about 2 – 3 years and that Mukesh (proposed transferee) is his only son. He had annexed copy of his ration-card along with his application, which suggests that his wife was alive, and along with Mukesh, he has two sons and three daughters. However, after he received the communication dated 5.11.2009, he realised his mistake and, therefore, on 18.3.2010, in his letter addressed to the concerned authority of the respondent – railway administration, he stated that since he is illiterate and since he relied upon the typist, such mistake cropped-up in his application and in his affidavit, and requested the railway administration to reconsider his request. However, it came to be turned down by communication dated 5.5.2010 on the ground that false averments were made in his application and in his affidavit. 9. Examining the papers annexed with this petition and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, we do not find any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. However, it came to be turned down by communication dated 5.5.2010 on the ground that false averments were made in his application and in his affidavit. 9. Examining the papers annexed with this petition and considering the submissions advanced on behalf of both the sides, we do not find any malafide intention on the part of the petitioner. It becomes clear that he is illiterate and as explained by him, he fully relied upon the typist, who typed his application and his affidavit. There is no dispute that the misstatement was made to the effect that his wife has died and that Mukesh is his only son. It is pertinent to note that along with the application, he had annexed copy of his ration-card, revealing the full details of his family. Thus, if at all there was any malafide intention in the mind of the petitioner, then he would not have annexed copy of his ration-card. It is clear that the petitioner was not going to gain any benefit by making false averments in his application and in his affidavit. 10. If the case of the petitioner is examined from different angle, in context of the policy Annexure-K, it becomes clear that the requirements laid down in the policy have been fully complied with by the petitioner. As per respondent – railway administration, the misstatements were made by the petitioner to the effect that his wife was not alive and that Mukesh is his only son. In that context, if the policy Annexure-K is considered, it clearly transpires that the misstatements made by the petitioner do not cause any adverse effect upon the case of the petitioner. 11. In that view of the mater, we are of the considered view that the petition deserves to be allowed. The submission made on behalf of the respondent railway was that if the case of the petitioner would be considered then there are other almost similar cases pending before the railway administration, which may be adversely affected. However, so far as the present petition is concerned, as stated above, the petition deserves to be allowed on merits. Therefore, the above submission made on behalf of the railway administration deserves no consideration. Obviously the decision of each case depends upon the merits of each case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. However, so far as the present petition is concerned, as stated above, the petition deserves to be allowed on merits. Therefore, the above submission made on behalf of the railway administration deserves no consideration. Obviously the decision of each case depends upon the merits of each case. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and accordingly it is allowed. The respondent – railway administration is directed to transfer the buckle/badge No. 2245/373 of the petitioner to the name of petitioner’s son, namely, Mukesh on usual terms and conditions. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs and D.S. Permitted. P P P P P