# Laxman Prasad v. Union of India and Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 1 ILRA 246
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-08-12
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69581 of 2010
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala, Anil Kumar Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/laxman-prasad-v-union-of-india-and-ors-42764
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Renewal of
license to run stall on railway platformpetitioner being scheduled caste-under
reserve category license given-application
for renewal remained pending for long
period-in
between
by
circular
dated
20.05.2009 the board clarified that with
provision of renewal of old license and
sc/st category-rejection on ground of
dismissal of earlier petition-challenging
procedure by inviting tender for fresh
allotment-being different cause of actioncan not come in way of considerationpetition allowed with direction.

Held: Para-9
Consequently,
for
the
reasons
stated
aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that
the action of the respondents in rejecting
the petitioner's application for renewal of
his licence was wholly arbitrary and based
on non-existing grounds. The impugned
order cannot be sustained and is quashed.
Writ petition is allowed and a writ of
mandamus is issued commanding the
authority to pass appropriate orders for
renewing the licence of the petitioner
within
six
weeks
from
the
date
of
production of a certified copy of this order.

## Text

246 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

It is not disputed that the First
Statute of the University was not amended
in the manner provided under Section 50
of the Act till the date the petitioner was
appointed and thus principle of estoppel,
waiver or acquiescence would not apply
against law ........"

If the contention of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner is accepted that
once the resolution has been passed by
the Board of Directors, UPSWC for
making amendment in the Regulations,
the petitioners are entitled for the benefit
as per the said resolution irrespective of
the fact whether the said resolution is
sanctioned by the State Government for
the purpose of making amendment in the
Regulations as it would amount to making
the procedure prescribed under Section
42 redundant."

16. In view of above and looking to
the facts and circumstances of the case, in
my view, retirement of petitioner on
31.12.2013, on attaining the age of
superannuation of 58 years, according to
existing provision, does not warrant any
interference. The Government Order
dated 12.08.2013 would come into effect
only when the entire procedure laid down
in para 1 to 6 is completed and, thereafter,
a decision is taken and order is issued
having
effect
of
amending
present
provision,
extending
age
of
superannuation from 58 to 60 years.
Presently it is not the case in present writ
petition.

17. The writ petition, therefore,
lacks merit. Dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.01.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.
THE HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69581 of 2010

Laxman Prasad... Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and Ors.........Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.K. Tyagi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vivek Singh, S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Renewal of
license to run stall on railway platformpetitioner being scheduled caste-under
reserve category license given-application
for renewal remained pending for long
period-in
between
by
circular
dated
20.05.2009 the board clarified that with
provision of renewal of old license and
sc/st category-rejection on ground of
dismissal of earlier petition-challenging
procedure by inviting tender for fresh
allotment-being different cause of actioncan not come in way of considerationpetition allowed with direction.

Held: Para-9
Consequently,
for
the
reasons
stated
aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that
the action of the respondents in rejecting
the petitioner's application for renewal of
his licence was wholly arbitrary and based
on non-existing grounds. The impugned
order cannot be sustained and is quashed.
Writ petition is allowed and a writ of
mandamus is issued commanding the
authority to pass appropriate orders for
renewing the licence of the petitioner
within
six
weeks
from
the
date
of
production of a certified copy of this order.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K.Tyagi, learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek
1 All] Laxman Prasad Vs. Union of India and Ors.
247
Singh, the learned counsel for the
Railways.

2. Petitioner is a scheduled caste and
was granted a licence for running a Stall
on the platform at Jhansi Railway station
in the year 1970. Since then, the licence
was being renewed from time to time.

3. In the year 1994, the Railway
Board proposed to regulate the allotment
of the licences through a policy decision
and, based on such policy, the petitioner
was again granted a licence in the year
1997 for a period of 3 years. An
agreement was executed and the licence
fee was required to be paid by the
petitioner annually. In the year 2005, the
policy was again revised and reservation
was also provided for the allotment of
stalls to scheduled caste, scheduled tribes
and O.B.C. categories. In the year 2007 a
new
policy
dated
17.12.2007
was
enforced whereby the Railways thought it
fit to allot the stalls through an open
tender system. No provision was made for
renewal of the existing licence as per the
earlier policy. In this regard, the Railway
authorities sought clarification from the
Railway Board. A clarification dated
4.8.2008 was issued indicating that
existing licence holders shall be allowed
to continue till the period of the licence
and that thereafter new licence would be
issued as per the new policy of 2007. This
clarification did not indicate renewal of
the existing licencees in the reserved
categories and, accordingly a fresh
clarification was given by the Railway
Board on 20.5.2009 indicating that the
policy of 17.12.2007 does not prohibit the
renewal of the licence of the existing
licence holders belonging to the reserved
categories.
The
Railway
Board
accordingly directed the authorities to
consider such proposal pending with them
for granting renewal of these licences. For
facility, the extract of the clarification
issued by the Railway Board dated
20.5.2009 is extracted hereunder :-

"3. In view of the above it is further
advised that while taking any decision in
such kind of matters they may consider the
basic guidelines of Catering policy, 2005
dated 16.03.2005 and 21.12.2005 and
subsequent clarifications on renewal of
SMUs. As such, the Misc. stall/trolley
policy guidelines dated 17.12.2007 do not
prohibit railways for granting renewal to
existing licensees belonging to reserved
category. Hence, railway may consider all
such proposals pending with them for
granting renewal to the existing Misc.
stall/trolley licensees belonging to reserved
category subject to satisfactory performance
and payment of all dues and also
withdrawal of court cases, if any, filed by
them before various courts of law. "

3. Since Railway authorities were in
dilemma with regard to the procedure to be
adopted for existing licence holders, the
petitioner applied for renewal of his licence
and deposited the licence fee upto the
period 30.11.2008. Apparently no orders on
his application for renewal was passed by
the
Railway
authorities.
Since
no
clarification came-forth from the Railway
board, the petitioner sought continuance of
his stall by applying for allotment of the
stall under the general category through
tender process. The petitioner's application
was rejected and, being aggrieved by the
non-grant of a stall, filed Writ Petition No.
59738 of 2008 which was dismissed by a
judgment dated 21.11.2008.

4. When the clarification dated
20.5.2009 came the petitioner made a
248 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
representation that his earlier application
for renewal may be processed and his
licence be renewed and when no action
was taken by the authorities, the petitioner
approached the writ court by filing Writ
Petition No. 18626 of 2010 which was
disposed of by an order of the court dated
20.7.2010 directing the authorities to
decide the representation.

5. Based on the aforesaid direction, the
authority, by an order dated 17.2.2010,
rejected the representation for renewal of his
licence. The representation was rejected on
the ground that no application for renewal was
pending on the date when the clarification of
the Railway Board dated 20.5.2009 was
received by the authority and that the
petitioner's writ petition for grant of an
allotment of the stall was rejected by the High
Court. The petitioner being aggrieved by the
said order has filed the present writ petition.

6. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties at some length and having
perused the record which have been annexed
in the pleadings, the court is of the opinion
that the action of the respondents in rejecting
the application of the petitioner for renewal
was based on non-existing ground. The
contention of the respondents that the
application for renewal was not pending as
on the date of the clarification is patently
erroneous. The clarification of the Railway
Board dated 20.5.2009 indicates that there
was no embargo upon the authority in not
considering the renewal application of the
existing licensees belonging to the reserved
categories under the policy dated 17.12.2007.
In the light of this direction indicated by the
railway board the fault lay with the authority
in not processing the renewal application of
the petitioner in the year 2008 when an
appropriate licence fee was deposited upto
the period 30.11.2008. Had the authority
processed the application at that stage the
situation would not have arisen when the
clarification came into existence on 20.5.2009.

7. Further, writ petition filed by the
petitioner had nothing to do with regard to
the renewal of his licence. The writ
petition was with regard to the fresh
allotment of a stall under the tender
process which was rejected. The cause of
action for the writ petition was totally
different and distinct from the controversy
involved in the present writ petition.

8. In a supplementary affidavit filed
by the petitioner it has come on record
that the stall allotted to the petitioner still
is existing and has not been allotted to any
other person. This fact has not been
denied by the respondents.

9. Consequently, for the reasons stated
aforesaid, the court is of the opinion that the
action of the respondents in rejecting the
petitioner's application for renewal of his
licence was wholly arbitrary and based on
non-existing grounds. The impugned order
cannot be sustained and is quashed. Writ
petition is allowed and a writ of mandamus is
issued commanding the authority to pass
appropriate orders for renewing the licence of
the petitioner within six weeks from the date
of production of a certified copy of this order.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 69631 of 2013

Ranjeet Kumar Gupta... Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Anr.... ....Respondents