IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13555 of 2009 Om Prakash Gupta, son of Late Kanhai Sah, Mohalla Kajibag, PS Alamganj, District Patna – Petitioner. Vs. 1) The Railway Board through its Chairman Railway Board, New Delhi. 2) The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali. 3) The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway Division, Danapur, Patna. 4) The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway Division, Danapur, Patna – Respondents. 3 22.9.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is aggrieved by order, dated 8.9.2009 passed in compliance of the order of this court, dated 3.2.2009. By the aforesaid order the petitioner’s freedom fighter’s railway pass has been cancelled on the ground that it was misused and found in possession of one Suchit Kumar. Earlier the order passed by the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur was quashed by this court on the ground that it was not a speaking order. While going through the order impugned it appears that the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur has committed the same mistake again. The show cause filed by the petitioner has not been considered, rather, it has been rejected by observing that the show cause is irrelevant viz-a-viz the findings of the High Court in Case No. 1390/C/2004. Apparently an application was made on behalf of the petitioner to release his freedom fighter’s pass in the aforesaid case. The application was rejected on the ground that Suchit Kumar had accepted that he had been given the pass by his 2 employer Rajesh Kumar who runs an organization known as Indian Tourist Bureau. Suchit Kumar has stated that the pass was not by Om Prakash Gupta, rather, it was handed over by Rajesh Kush, his employer for the purpose of buying a ticket. The application for release of the freedom fighter’s pass was, thus, rejected. It is an interim order and is not an order with respect to the allegation that the petitioner was mis-utilizing the pass. In fact the petitioner is not accused in the criminal case instituted by the railways. The fact that Suchit Kumar was found with certain documents including the railway pass of the petitioner can hardly be a ground for cancelling the pass in view of the specific statement of the petitioner that he had handed over the pass to Suchit Kumar. A statement has also been made that said Rajesh Kumar is the son of this petitioner. In any event this court finds that the order, dated 8.9.2009 has been passed without taking into consideration the show cause of the petitioner or for that matter without interpreting the findings of Case No. 1390/C/2004 in its correct perspective. I accordingly quash the order, dated 8.9.2009. This writ petition is allowed. This court, however, directs that the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur after notice to the petitioner should pass orders in this matter, if so advised. haque ( Sheema Ali Khan, J .)