THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO WRIT PETITION NO.1784 of 2006 Dated: 02-02-2006 M/s Shakthi Travels, Vijayawada. ..... PETITIONER AND The Union of India, Secunderabad, and two others. .....RESPONDENTS THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S. RAO WRIT PETITION NO.1784 of 2006 ORDER: The petitioner is a proprietary concern. It has obtained agency under the authorization of Rail Travellers’ Service Agents Rules, 1985 (‘the Rules’ for brevity). It is the case of the petitioner that while the licence/Agency issued to the petitioner under Rule 3 is still in force, on 24-01-2006 the officials of the respondents’ visited the petitioner’s premises and took away the identity card issued by the Railways. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 4 (a) of the Rules, which reads as under: “4(a) Suspension/Cancellation of the licence: Without prejudice to any other provisions under the Indian Railways Act, 1890 and these rules the Competent Authority shall have the right to suspend or cancel at any time the licence for violation of or for ceasing to fulfil any of the conditions under these rules or any other rules or regulation applicable with regard to purchase of ticket and securing reservation or for any other reason which the competent authority deems to be expedient in the public interest; Provided that no action under this rule shall be taken unless an opportunity to show cause is given to the agent.” A plain reading of the above Rule would show that unless and until a railway agent is given an opportunity to show cause and submit explanation, the licence cannot be suspended or cancelled. At the stage of admission, the learned standing counsel for Railways, Sri Y. Ravindra Kumar representing Sri T.S. Venkata Ramana, submits that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, the third respondent herein had issued a show cause notice to the proprietor of the petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why the agreement dated 16-09-2005 entered into with petitioner’s agency should not be cancelled. This supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that even without there being any order under Rule 4 (a) of the Rules, the identity card was taken away by the officials. This aspect of the matter is, however, denied by the learned standing counsel. The petitioner also does not dispute that the show cause notice is already issued and therefore, liberty is given to the petitioner to submit an explanation within one week from today. As and when such explanation is submitted, it shall be open to the third respondent to consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the Rules. As the petitioner’s identity card was not taken away as submitted by the learned standing counsel, it shall be open to the petitioner to carry on the business till the agency/licence is cancelled or suspended. The writ petition, with the above observations, is accordingly disposed of. No costs. _____________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 2nd February, 2006 ghn