ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Although earlier time was granted to the counsel for the respondents to bring on record the documents, but no supplementary counter affidavit has been filed till date by the respondents. 3. This writ petitioner has moved this court for quashing the order dated 13.4.2004 passed by the Respondent No.3 Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Howrah whereby the representation of the petitioner for transfer of license in place of her deceased husband-licensee, has been refused. 4. On the basis of the averment made in the writ petition, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner's husband was allotted Commercial Plot No. B at K.P. Siding, Pakur by the respondent authorities vide letter dated 25.2.1984 for stacking of stone materials which will be carried by railway wagon. Petitioner's husband continued to carry out the work of the stacking of stone materials over the said allotted plot. However, on his death the petitioner also continued over the said plot as per the Annexure-4, certificate issued by the Goods Shed Superintendent (In-charge), Eastern Railway, Pakur. Petitioner, thereafter, applied for transfer of license of the said commercial plot in her name. On the basis of the Annexure-6, it is submitted that there were no other railway dues lying against her husband and request has been once again repeated vide letter dated 15.1.2001 (Annexure-7). However, no decision was being taken. Petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C). No. 3250 of 2002, which was disposed of on 13.6.2002 without going into the merit of the contention of the petitioner and without expressing opinion while directing the respondent to dispose of the representation of the petitioner relating to her grievances within a period of six weeks. Thereafter, order was passed by the respondent vide order dated 17.12.2003 (Annexure-14) whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that petitioner had failed to submit certain original papers. Petitioner, thereafter, once again moved this Court in W.P.(C) No. 1091 of 2004 stating that she has submitted the required documents before the authorities, even then her representation was rejected vide order dated 17.12.2003 on the ground of non-submission of those documents. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.2.2004 directing the petitioner to submit original as well as attested copies of the four documents mentioned in the said order dated 17.12.2003 before the respondent no. The said writ petition was disposed of on 26.2.2004 directing the petitioner to submit original as well as attested copies of the four documents mentioned in the said order dated 17.12.2003 before the respondent no. 3 within a period of four weeks. Thereafter, the respondents were directed to pass a reasoned order on representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. This Court observed that it had not gone into the merit of the case. 5. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner by referring Annexure-16 dated 15.3.2004 that pursuant to the order dated 26.2.2004, she submitted required papers including the license of mining lease and other certificates before the respondent-Senior Divisional Manager (Commercial), Eastern Railway, Howrah vide representation dated 15.3.2004. The impugned order has been passed thereafter on 13.4.2004. It is submitted on behalf of the counsel for the petitioner that once again her request has been refused, although she had submitted all the required documents, relying upon the Railway Board's Circular No. 83/W2/LM/18/87 dated 3.3.1987, which deals with the issues in respect of the transfer of licence. By referring the impugned order, it is submitted that transfer of licence to a legal heir of a deceased licensee is permissible in case of plots not connected with Railway working. Petitioner's request has been refused on the ground that the said plot is used for loading of stone traffic and it is connected with Railway working. 6. However, learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring the said circular dated 3.3.1987 annexed as Annexure-C to the counter affidavit of the respondents, submits that the said circular does not apply to the petitioner's case as from perusal of para-III of the said circular, the condition provided therein does not apply to the petitioner's case. It is submitted that the said circular related to renewal of license of shopping/tehbazari or fresh licence for such purpose, but petitioner's allotment was in connection with railway working itself i.e., stacking of stone materials on that plot in question. It is further submitted that in the case of death of an existing licencee for a plot of land not connected with the railway working, renewal of licence may be done to his/her legal heirs on the merits of the case itself. It is further submitted that in the case of death of an existing licencee for a plot of land not connected with the railway working, renewal of licence may be done to his/her legal heirs on the merits of the case itself. Allotment of the land of the petitioner's husband was not for shopping/ tehbazari rather, it was for stacking of stone materials for loading it on wagon and as per the impugned order itself used for railway working, therefore the reference of the said circular in the impugned order by the respondent is wholly misplaced and refusal of the representation on that ground is totally misconceived. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the record and impugned order including the said circular, it appears that respondent authorities have relied upon the circular, which prima facie appears to be non-applicable to the facts of the case as per the impugned order itself. The allotted plot in the name of the petitioner's husband was used for loading of stone traffic and not in connection with shopping or tehbazar for which acts said circular may have certain bearing. It becomes also apparent that after passing of the last order, petitioner had submitted relevant documents, but it appears in the impugned order that it has also been stated that petitioner did not submit the mining lease in her name. 8. From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it appears that the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind and has relied upon the circular, which are not applicable to the facts of the case. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner within a period of 16 weeks from the date of receipt/production of the copy of this order. 9. Accordingly, this writ petition stands disposed of.