The Hon’ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.34765 of 2014 Dated 18.11.2014 Between: Smt.P.Sivaleela Devi …Petitioner And The Andhra Pradesh Dairy Development Co-operative Federation Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director, Hyderabad and 4 others.
…Respondents Counsel for the petitioner: Mr.C.Sunil Kumar Reddy Counsel for the respondents: ---
The Court made the following:
Order:
This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to set side Notification No.1355/GM(Mktg.)/Rly./2014, dated 07.11.2014, issued by respondent Nos.1 to 3, inviting applications in prescribed format, from eligible candidates, for appointment as Sub-
Licensees to operate Vijaya Dairy Parlours at various Railway Stations in the State of Andhra Pradesh, as being contrary to the Railway Board Proceeding No.2004/TG-III/604/4, dated 19-04- 2005.
I have heard Mr.C.Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and perused the record.
The petitioner claims to be member of a self help group and was granted license to establish and operate Vijaya Dairy parlor at Platform Nos.2 and 3 of Tirupathi Railway Station in the year 2007. In this regard, she has entered into a tripartite agreement between herself, Indian Railways and respondent No.1 for a period of three years commencing from 1st January, 2008 to 31-12-2011. Thereafter, the petitioner’s license was renewed till 31-05-2014 by respondent Nos.1 to 3. As the petitioner’s representation for further renewal of sub-license was not favourably considered, she has filed WP.No.15649 of 2014 for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 3 herein, in not renewing her sub-license, as illegal and arbitrary. Similar Writ Petitions were filed by other sub-
licensees also. On 28.08.2014, this Court passed a common order in all those Writ Petitions. A perusal of the said order shows that the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner and other similarly situated persons was two-fold viz., that they are entitled to renewal of licenses and alternatively, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have to again call for tenders for allotting lease hold rights for holding stalls and that respondent Nos.1 and 2, without issuing any such notification, temporarily appointed another agency to operate Vijaya Dairy parlors w.e.f., 01.04.2014. This Court, while accepting the plea of the Counsel for Railways that there is no policy for automatic renewal of sub- licenses, held that no valid ground for entertaining those Writ Petitions exists. While dismissing those Writ Petitions, this Court has directed respondent Nos.1 and 2 to issue notification for appointment of sub-licensees as per their norms within two months from the date of receipt of the said order. Liberty was given to the petitioners to participate in the process that may be initiated by respondent Nos.1 and 2. In pursuance of the said order, respondent No.1 has issued the impugned notification, dated 07-11-2014, inviting applications in the prescribed profoma, from the eligible candidates, for appointment as sub-licensees to operate Vijaya Dairy parlours at various railway stations. Feeling aggrieved by this notification, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition.
In her affidavit, the petitioner has inter alia averred that as per the policy of the Indian Railways, only co-operatives and self help groups have to be permitted to run the dairy farms and that, in the previous Writ Petitions, the said policy was suppressed by the respondents with ulterior motive.
In my opinion, the stand taken by the petitioner in this Writ Petition runs contrary to the one taken by her in W.P.No.15649 of 2014. As noted herein above, the alternative plea of the petitioner in the said Writ Petition was that, if she is not entitled for renewal of her sub-license, respondent Nos.1 and 2 can only invite applications through tender process. It is not the pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent Nos.1 and 2 are bound to allow only co-operatives and self help groups to run the dairy parlors. It is also not the pleaded case of the petitioner in this Writ Petition that the alleged policy of Railways was not in existence when she has filed the said Writ Petition.
On the contrary, she has alleged that the respondents have deliberately suppressed the said policy. If that be so, the appropriate remedy for the petitioner is to seek review of the judgment of this Court in the previous Writ Petition. Instead of availing that remedy, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition. Having invited a direction from this Court that respondent Nos.1 and 2 shall issue notification for appointment of sub-licensees, the petitioner cannot seek any direction contrary to the same by filing a fresh Writ petition. In other words, the petitioner has virtually sought review of the judgment of this Court in W.P.Nos.14270 of 2014 and batch by filing the present Writ Petition. Such a course is not legally permissible.
For the above-mentioned reasons, this Writ Petition is, wholly, misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Liberty is, however, given to the petitioner to avail the remedy of review.
As a sequel, WPMP.No.43489 of 2014, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous.
(C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J)
Dt: 18th November, 2014
LUR