HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No. 30112 of 2010 Dated: 23.12.2014 Between:
Burli Ramanjaneyulu … Petitioner And Union of India, Rep. by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Waltair Division, E.Co.Railway, Visakhapatnam and another.
....
Respondents The court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI WRIT PETITION No.30112 of 2010 ORDER :
This writ petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the termination order, vide proceedings bearing No.WCF/Catering/Stall/SCM/2009-10, dated 08.09.2010, issued by the office of the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Waltair Division, Visakhapatnam-2nd respondent herein.
2. Heard Sri Ramana Allu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri T.S.Venkata Ramana, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Railways and perused the material available.
3. According to the petitioner, in response to a tender notification, dated 14.03.2008, issued by the 2nd respondent, calling applications from the eligible persons for granting permission for installation and maintaining Catering stalls at various Railway Stations, he also applied for licence for running a Veg. Tea Stall at Simhachalam Railway Station, Visakhapatnam and the 2nd respondent awarded licence to the petitioner vide proceedings, dated 25.05.2009. The grievance precisely in the writ petition is that the 2nd respondent herein terminated the licence granted in favour of the petitioner herein by virtue of an order, dated 08.09.2010, in illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner herein and in contravention of the circulars issued by the Railways and contrary to the terms and conditions in the agreement.
4. This Court issued Rule Nisi on 14.12.2011, but did not grant any interim orders. A counter is filed on behalf of respondents-Railways, denying the averments in the affidavit in support of the writ petition and justifying the impugned action.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order impugned in the present writ petition, terminating the licence of the petitioner herein is highly illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the circular instructions of the Railways and opposed to the conditions of the lease agreement.
6. Per contra, it is vehemently and strenuously contended by the learned Standing Counsel for Railways that the present writ petition is not maintainable as the subject matter of the writ petition is purely a contractual matter and the petitioner herein needs to approach a competent Civil Court for redressal of his grievance. It is further contended that earlier also an order of termination was issued on 02.09.2009. But subsequently, on the request made by the petitioner herein, the said termination order was revoked by virtue of proceedings, dated 24.11.2009, issued by the Senior Divisional (Commercial) Manager, East-Coast Railway, Waltair. It is further contended by the learned Standing Counsel that after revocation of the orders of the termination by virtue of the above orders, dated 24.07.2009, a fresh agreement was entered into on 19.01.2009 for a period of five years, commencing from 09.06.2004 to 08.06.2014 and the said period also came to an end. It is contended that in view of the conduct of the petitioner herein and as the subject matter of the writ petition is with regard to a contract, the petitioner herein is not entitled for any relief from the Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
7. A perusal of the material available before this Court clearly and categorically discloses that earlier also by way of an order, dated 02.11.2009, the licence granted earlier in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents and subsequently on the request made by the petitioner, the same was revoked, restoring the licence in favour of the petitioner herein. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the subject matter in the writ petition is purely a contractual matter. It is also significant to note that the contract entered into between the petitioner and the respondents-railways came to an end on 08.06.2014. It is also submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for Railways that after the cancellation of the subject licence, alternative arrangements have already been made by the Railways. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after receipt of the show-cause notice, dated 25.06.2010, which is referred to as reference No.2 in the impugned order, the petitioner herein submitted a representation dated 02.07.2010, requesting the authorities to refer the matter for arbitration and the same is seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents-railways. On instructions, the learned Standing Counsel has submitted that no such representation, dated 02.07.2010 was given. In view of the nature of controversy involved in the matter and taking into consideration of the expiry of term of lease on 08.06.2014, this Court is not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India at this length of time. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of the high handed action of the respondents-railways, his client sustained heavy loss.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dismissed, giving liberty to the petitioner herein to approach a competent civil Court for redressal of grievance including for damages, if he is so advised, within a period of six months from today. No costs.
9. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
A.V. SESHA SAI, J 23rd December 2014 mar