MEMUNABEN OSMAN GOTA Vs. SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside the communication dated 16.11.2015 by the Western Railway Authorities directing the petitioner to vacate the fruit stall and handover the possession to the railway authorities.

(2.) Learned advocate Mr. Asit Joshi appearing for the petitioner submits that the only ground for issuing impugned communication is that the petitioner is a widow of the original license holder, who had expired and at the time of entering into contract has not given any nomination to succeed upon his death. Learned advocate submits that the petitioner had entered upon the occupation of fruit stall situated on Jamnagar Railway Station since 1949 when the father-in-law of the petitioner was allotted stall for selling green and dry fruits since then. Though there were changes in the policy, petitioner's family had continued to occupy the stall and do the business. Learned advocate submits that last agreement was entered into in the year 2002 between railway authorities and the husband of the petitioner which was to continue till 31.10.2005. In the meantime, in the year 2005 itself, new policy was placed, wherein all vendors were taken over by IRCTC and instead of entering into agreement, started issuing license on periodical basis and charging license fees. It is submitted that the license of the husband of the petitioner was also renewed from time to time and lastly in the year 2015, where the license period was to expire on 31.12.2015, petitioner's husband expired on 31.08.2015 and hence, there was still four months unexpired period under the license issued in favour of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner was entitled to continue at least till the expiry of the license period. However, by the impugned communication which was before the expiry of the non expired period of four months, which is required to be quashed.

(3.) As against this, learned advocate Ms. Archana Amin for the respondents submitted by drawing attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-reply submitted that Clause 21 can be invoked in the case of the petitioner only where the nomination is given by the license holder at the time of entering in the contract. In the instance case, the husband of the petitioner has not made any nomination at the time of entering in the contract and therefore, opportunity was given to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to furnish the evidence of her nomination by her deceased husband and upon her failure to furnish any document in this regard, the impugned communication was ordered. It is submitted that after the impugned order, the issues of vending on platform has been taken over under the policy of 2017. Accordingly, master plan is in place even for the Jamnagar Railway Station where there is no provision for fruit stall. It is submitted that in any case, as per the new policy, stalls for vending available on Jamnagar Railway Station were put for bidding and after the process of bidding, new persons who have been selected now already been put in possession. Therefore, at this stage, there is no scope for accommodating the petitioner if at all and that too for a period of four months which had remained unexpired from the license of her husband.