SANJEEV KUMAR BHATTACHARYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no order has been passed on the representation of petitioner for substitution of his name in the license granted in favour of his father. He further submitted that from the certificate of the Circle Officer, it will appear that petitioner and his two brothers are the only heirs and the brothers of petitioner have given no objection by filing affidavit.

(2.) Counsel for the respondents submitted that in the absence of counter affidavit he is not in a position to accept or controvert the averments made in this writ petition. However, he submitted that if the petitioner's representation is pending, orders will be passed on the same.

(3.) In the circumstances, the petitioner is permitted to make a fresh representation before the Divisional Railway Manager, Hatia, South Eastern Railway, Ranchi, Jharkhand (Respondent No. 5). If the respondent No. 5 is satisfied that the petitioner's name can be substituted in the license, he will pass necessary orders in that regard. If the respondent No. 5 finds that the prayer of petitioner cannot be allowed, he will communicate the reasons to the petitioner. This exercise should be completed within four weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.