MANOJ KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is a graduate unemployed youth and a permanent resident of Durg District. He applied to the Railway Administration for grant of licence to function as Railway Travelling Service Agent. In response to his application, he was granted licence to function as Railway Travelling Service Agent for a period of 3 years commencing from 3-12-1999 and ending 2-12-2002. Well before the expiry of term of licence. The petitioner made an application to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager for renewal of the licence for a further period of 3 years from 3-12-2002 to 2-12-2005. Then, came the impugned endorsement dated 26-11-2002 marked as Annexure P-1. It reads as follows :- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_88_AIR(CHHAT)_2007Html1.htm</FRM> The petitioner being aggrieved by the above endorsement issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, the third respondent herein has preferred this writ petition for intervention of the Court.

(2.) I heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing my attention to Rule 7 of the Rules made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 47 of the Indian Railways Act, 1890, would contend that the third respondent ought to have renewed the licence as per the petitioner's request and the reason stated in the impugned endorsement not to renew the licence is totally irrelevant and could not be sustained in law. Learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents - Railway, per contra, would support the impugned endorsement.

(3.) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find an error apparent on the face of the impugned endorsement. The reason stated by the third respondent not to renew the licence in favour of the petitioner is totally irrelevant and extraneous to the decision-making in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 7 reads as follows :-