Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 2896 (DEL)

Union of India v. Student Travel Corporation

2014-11-07

G.ROHINI, RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

body2014
JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.:-- 1. This intra-court appeal impugns the order dated 19th May, 2014 of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3013/2014 filed by the respondent. 2. The writ petition from which this appeal arises was filed by the respondent / writ petitioner impugning the Commercial Circular dated 4th September, 2009 of the appellant Railways, of doing away with the Scheme formulated as far back as in the year 1980 of ‘Rail Tourist Agents’, in the light of drastic changes in 33 years from when the Scheme was first formulated and also directing that no further appointments of Rail Tourist Agents be made and observing that the licences of the existing Rail Tourist Agents should not be renewed whenever they are due for renewal. The respondent / writ petitioner was one such Rail Tourist Agent since the year 1996 and his licence was being renewed from time to time and was valid till 15th May, 2014 and was not renewed in accordance with the impugned Circular. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed. 3. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, though has not found any merit in the petition and dismissed the same but for the reason of the respondent / writ petitioner having remained a Rail Tourist Agent for over two decades and to enable it to re-arrange its affairs and make adequate alternative arrangements, granted six months time ending on 30th November, 2014 to the respondent / writ petitioner to wind up its business. Thus effectively, though the learned Single Judge did dismiss the petition, but extended the licence of the respondent / writ petitioner till 30th November, 2014. 4. The appeal came up before us first on 14th July, 2014 when while issuing notice of the same, the operation of the order of the learned Single Judge was stayed. We have heard the counsel for the parties. 5. We were during the hearing, on enquiry, informed that the respondent / writ petitioner has not worked as a Rail Tourist Agent since 15th May, 2014 and was not allowed to so function even after the impugned order dated 19th May, 2014 and till we heard the appeal on 14th October, 2014. Moreover, even the time till 30th November, 2014, till when the learned Single Judge has extended the licence of the respondent/writ petitioner is now about to expire. 6. Moreover, even the time till 30th November, 2014, till when the learned Single Judge has extended the licence of the respondent/writ petitioner is now about to expire. 6. The counsel for the respondent / writ petitioner has argued that the business as the Rail Tourist Agent has been the sole business proprietor of the respondent and the licence of the respondent / writ petitioner be extended for a period of six months from the date of disposal of this appeal, to enable the proprietor of the respondent to earn his livelihood and make alternative source of livelihood. 7. We are not satisfied with the reason which prevailed with the learned Single Judge to, though not finding any merit in the challenge to the action of the appellant impugned in the writ petition, still extending the licence of the respondent / writ petitioner on the ground of the respondent/writ petitioner having not had sufficient notice. As aforesaid, the decision to not renew such licences was taken on 4th September, 2013; the licence of the respondent / writ petitioner was valid till 15th May, 2014 and was not disturbed. The respondent / writ petitioner thus had nearly nine months notice that his licence will not be renewed after 15th May, 2014. In fact, the respondent / writ petitioner immediately after the Circular dated 4th September, 2013 i.e. since 27th September, 2013 had been making representations against the said decision of the appellant Railways. The respondent / writ petitioner thus had sufficient time to arrange his affairs. 8. Moreover, once no merit had been found, the question of extending the licence amounting to allowing the writ petition did not arise. 9. We accordingly allow this appeal and set aside the direction of the learned Single Judge of allowing the respondent / writ petitioner to continue as a Rail Tourist Agent till 30th November, 2014. However no order as to costs.