IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.H.L.DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 WA.No.957 of 2008 -------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.17713/2007 Dated 19/12/2007 .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- T.SREEKUMAR, BHARATH PUBLICITY, ANAND BHAVAN, KURUMANDALAM, PARAVOOR, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.AJAYAGHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. THE DVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM. 3. DRISYA ADVERTISERS, ADHITHIYA NAGAR, H.NO.78, KANNIMEL, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: H.L.DATTU, C.J. & M.C.HARI RANI, J. ------------------------------------------------------------------ W.A.No.957 of 2008 ------------------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT H.L.Dattu, C.J. In this appeal the petitioner/appellant questions the correctness or otherwise of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.17713/2007 dated 19th December, 2007. By the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has rejected the writ petition. (2). In the body of the writ petition, the petitioner has averred that the Railways has awarded a contract of erecting hoarding in their premises in favour of one Smt.Dhanalakshmi and it is further stated that, with a specific understanding with Smt.Dhanalakshmi, the petitioner has erected hoarding and he is exhibiting advertisements. The contract by the Railways is with Smt.Dhanalakshmi, and in our view, the petitioner has no right whatsoever against the Railways. On this sole ground alone, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge ought to have rejected the writ petition. However, he has taken into consideration the other averments made by the petitioner/appellant and has answered them in negative and against the petitioner/appellant. Those observations made by the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, is neither erroneous nor contrary to the settled legal principles. In that view of the matter, the writ appeal requires to be rejected and it is rejected. Ordered accordingly. (H.L.DATTU) CHIEF JUSTICE (M.C.HARI RANI) JUDGE MS