UNION OF INDIA Vs. KHURSHID AHMED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since all these intra-court appeals arise out of the selfsame order dated 20th July, 2011 passed by the Single Bench in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.131/2010, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. The Single Bench allowed the writ application filed by petitioner-respondent no.1-Khurshid Ahmed and directed the respondents-Railway & IRCTC to hand over possession of stalls, so allotted, to the petitioner forthwith, however, petitioner would be liable to pay amount on the agreed rate of the contract which was higher than the licence fee now paid by the erstwhile licence holders. It was further observed that the petitioner would not plead or take advantage of all the licence fee paid by the erstwhile license holders.

(2.) The facts in nutshell are that the Chief Regional Manager, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as "the IRCTC") invited tenders for allotment of stalls at Jaipur Railway Station in accordance with the Catering Policy of the IRCTC in 2007 and in pursuance thereof, the petitioner-respondent no.1 submitted tenders for different stalls at different platforms and being the highest bidder, he was allotted six stalls. When the allotment of stalls was made in favour of the petitioner, a writ application was filed on behalf of those who were holding stalls being S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.4522/2007 M/s Ram Chanda Prabhudas & ors. V/s Union of India and ors. and in that writ application, interim order was passed by the Single Bench on 7.9.2007 taking note of the interim order passed by the Apex Court. Thereafter, the Apex Court modified the interim order on 16.9.2009 and consequently, the Single Bench vide order dated 30.11.2009 also modified the interim order dated 7.9.2007 so as to make it in consonance with the order passed by the Apex Court. After modification of the interim order, stay remained operational only in relation to the quota reserved for freedom fighters/women including war widows and widows of Railway employees/persons who have been dislocated or displaced due to their land having been taken over by the Railways. The stay was vacated qua all others. Thereafter, the Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC wrote letter to the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Western Railway, Jaipur for handing over the possession of stalls to the petitioner-respondent no.1 and pursuant thereto, the Divisional Railway Manager wrote letter to the Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC stating that they are ready to assist them to hand over possession of stalls to Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC, but not to the petitioner-respondent no.1. It was submitted by the petitioner-respondent no.1 that even after allotment of stalls pursuant to the tender and modification of the stay orders passed by the Apex Court so also the High Court, possession of the stalls was not given to him despite deposition of Rs.30 lacs in view of order of allotment. The Railway Department and IRCTC are shifting burden on each other for denial or delay in handing over the possession of stalls to the petitioner. After modification of the interim order by the Apex Court, other allottees were given possession of stalls, but the petitioner's case remained as an exception and he has not been allotted the stalls so far. Hence, the writ application was filed for issuance of directions for allotment of six stalls to the petitioner.

(3.) A reply to the writ application was filed by the Divisional Railway Manager wherein burden has been put mainly on IRCTC for all inactions in the matter. However, it was admitted that possession of stalls has to be handed over by IRCTC for which they can only provide assistance.