JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. - Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Thakur, counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. Heard Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State. 3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs: "For issuance of appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned respondents to: (i) Dispose of the petitioner''s name transfer application pending since 1998 onwards and transfer the commercial land measuring an area 24''*10'' = 240 sq. ft in Barkakana Market, Patratu in the name of the petitioner. (ii) Correct the survey entries and make entry of the name of the petitioner against the said premises. And for passing any other appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s), that Your Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and for doing justice to the petitioner." 4. Counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly the father of the petitioner was granted a license for commercial property of 240 sq. ft. in Barkakana Market, Patratu by the respondent- East Central Railway. He submits that the father of the petitioner expired on 11.11.1998 and thereafter, as per the family arrangement, the petitioner is entitled to this property. It is submitted that the petitioner continued to remain in possession of the property and has paid the license fee to the Respondent Railways till the year, 2014. 5. It is a specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been approaching the Railways for the purpose of transfer of the said license on account of death of his father and in order to satisfy the authorities that there is no other claimant, his brother has also filed an affidavit which has been submitted with the Railways. He further submits that as the license was not transferred in his name, the license fee was continued to be deposited in the name of his father. 6. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the third party who tried to evict the petitioner forcefully and take possession of the property which was reported to the Railways vide letter dated 26.11.2001. Ultimately, the matter was resolved. 7. 6. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that there was some dispute between the petitioner and the third party who tried to evict the petitioner forcefully and take possession of the property which was reported to the Railways vide letter dated 26.11.2001. Ultimately, the matter was resolved. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as the father of the petitioner has expired and the license is still running in the name of his deceased father, the petitioner having inherited the right of his father over the property, is entitled for the same as per the family arrangement. Therefore, this writ petition has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to consider the application filed by the petitioner for transfer of license standing in the name of his deceased father, in his name. 8. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has filed a counter-affidavit and has annexed a copy of the license. He submits by referring to the Clause-4 of the license that there is a bar that the licensee shall not transfer or sublet the privilege mentioned in Clause-1 of the agreement by way of license without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the Divisional Superintendent of Administration at Dhanbad. He further submits that there is a clear clause in the agreement that the licensee cannot transfer or sublet the property in connection with which license has been granted and therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record, this Court finds that admittedly the license was issued in the name of the father of the petitioner who expired in the year, 1998. Thereafter, the petitioner has been approaching the Railway authorities for the purposes of transfer of the license in his name, but no decision has been taken so far. However in the counter-affidavit the respondents have relied upon Clause-4 of the license agreement which prohibits the licensee to transfer or sublet the privileges under the license. Clause 4 of the agreement to license reads as follows:- "4. That the Licensee shall not transfer or sublet the privilege mentioned in Clause I hereof without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the Divisional Superintendent of the Administration at Dhanbad." 10. From bare perusal of the aforesaid clause it apparently deals with the acts and omissions of the licensee. That the Licensee shall not transfer or sublet the privilege mentioned in Clause I hereof without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the Divisional Superintendent of the Administration at Dhanbad." 10. From bare perusal of the aforesaid clause it apparently deals with the acts and omissions of the licensee. This Court is of the considered view that the said clause has nothing to do with the right of legal heirs and successors in the property after the death of the licencee. Accordingly, reliance upon Clause-4 of the agreement by the respondents in the counter-affidavit in order to deny the transfer of license to the petitioner after death of his father, is not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. However, it is not clear from the records as to whether there are any rules, norms, regulations or circular, which might have been issued by Railways in connection with those licenses in which the licensee has expired vis-a-vis the right of the legal heirs of the licensee after the death of the licensee. 12. Under Such circumstances, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 i.e. The Senior Divisional Engineer (3), East Central Railway, Dhanbad to take a decision in connection with the claim of the petitioner regarding his claim on the license standing in the name of his deceased father after his death. 13. The petitioner is permitted to file a fresh representation before respondent no. 2 i.e. The Senior Divisional Engineer (3), East Central Railway, Dhanbad giving all the details on the basis of which he is claiming his right. The respondent no. 2, in turn, is directed to dispose of the representation of the petitioner, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after considering the various norms, rules, regulations etc. as might have been issued by the Railways or under any other law in connection with the right of the legal heirs of the licencee after his death, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of such representation along with a copy of this order.