IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3941 of 2010 1. Hiralal Mishra S/O Late Ranjeet Mishra R/O Vill.- Nechua Khash, P.O.- Nechua Jalalpur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, Distt.- Gopalganj 2. Prabhunath Pathak S/O Late Vishwanath Pathak R/O Vill.- Jalalpur, P.O.- Nechua Jalalpur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, Distt.- Gopalganj, Bihar 3. Bindeshwari Sah ( Laxman Prasad ) S/O Mewalal Prasad R/O Vill.+P.O.- Nechua Jalalpur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, Distt.- Gopalganj 4. Arvind Pathak S/O Shri Prabhunath Pathak R/O Vill.- Jalalpur, P.S.- Kuchaikote, Distt.- Gopalganj Versus 1. The Union Of India through The General Manager N.E.Railway, Gorakhpur, U.P. 2. The General Manager N.E. Railway, Gorakhpur ( U.P. ) 3. The Divisional Rail Manager ( Commercial ) N.E. Railway, Varansi, U.P. 4. The Sr. Section Engineer Tamkuhi Road, N.E. Railway, Tamkuhi Road, Distt.- Deoria ( U.P. ) 5. The Station Superintendent Jalalpur Railway Station, Distt.- Gopalganj 6. Assistant Engineer (Rail) N.E. Railway, Chapra, Distt.- Saran -------------------- 05. 19.08.2011 Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, Assisting counsel to Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha appearing on behalf of the Railway authorities and its functionaries are present. The writ petition was filed questioning the direction as contained in the letter dated 14.12.1999 asking the petitioners to vacate the plots. The petitioners claim to be in occupation of the shops situated on the land of the respondent Railways under a valid settlement. It is contended that the petitioners had earlier also been paying license fee in relation to the said shops but subsequently upon refusal of the authorities to accept the same it could not be 2 deposited. It is stated that even when the license fee was not being accepted by the authorities, on 18.11.2009, a unit of the Railway protection Force sought to remove them, inter alia, on grounds of non-payment of the license fee. It is further contended that one of the petitioners did approach the respondent no. 3, the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), N.E. Railway, Varanasi, U.P., with a request to accept the license fee as well as to allow him to continue shop allotted to him but he did not receive any response thereto. There is no other document on the record of the proceeding to demonstrate as to whether the other petitioners have at all approached the authorities requesting him to accept the license fee in relation to the shop allotted to them under the settlement made by the respondent Railways as being claimed by the petitioners. It is also contended that the petitioners are in occupation of the shops settled over the landed property of the respondent Railways since 1980 and continue to remain in occupation even at present. The matter had been taken up on 30.6.2011, 18.7.2011 and again on 3.8.2011 when learned counsel for the respondent Railways was directed to seek instruction as to the issue raised in the writ petition. Despite the adjournments, no instruction seems to be forthcoming as learned counsel informs this Court that he has not received any instruction from the concerned authorities of the respondent Railways. Considering the circumstances aforesaid, no fruitful purpose would be served in keeping the writ petition pending and this Court without expressing its opinion as regard to the merits of 3 the case disposes of the writ petition with the liberty to the petitioners to raise their grievance before the concerned authority of the respondent Railway being the respondent no. 3, the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), N.E. Railway, Varanasi, U.P. together with supportive document and who shall consider the grievance of the petitioner and dispose of the same in accordance with law. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)