IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3059 of 2010 M/S LAL BEHARI SHARMA, A VENDING CONTRACTOR HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT GAYA RAILWAY STATION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DISTRICT-GAYA THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RADHEY SHYAM S/O LATE LAL BIHARI SHARMA R/O PS- KOTWALI PO-RAILWAY MAIL SERVICE --PETITIONER Versus 1. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY MINSTRY OF RAILWAY, UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS G.M. HAJIPUR 2. THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR 3. THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD, A GOVT. OF INDIA ENTERPRISE, HAVING ITS REGIONAL OFFICE AT BISCOMAUN TOWER 4TH FLOOR WEST CHANDI MAIDAN PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER IRCTC LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BISCOMAUN, GANDHI MAIDAN PATNA 5. THE STATION MANAGER, GAYA JUNCTION RAILWAY, GAYA------- ----------------------------------RESPONDENTS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. S.D.Sanjay,Advocate For the respondents 1,2&5: Mr. S.K.Ravi, Advocate For the respondents 3 & 4: Mr. A.Amanullah, Advocate ---------- 3 8.3.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Annexure-9 dated 30th January, 2010 issued by the Regional Manager Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (in short IRCTC) Patna is under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of this communication the petitioner who is a vending contractor at Gaya Railway Station has been asked to vacate one of the stalls operated by him on expiry of the license period on 30.4.2005. A subsequent communication has also been issued to him by the Station Manager of Gaya Railway Station to hand over key of the rooms which are under his occupation by virtue of the impugned order contained in annexure-9. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that annexure-9 is vague. It is not specific as to which stall is to be removed by the petitioner. The petitioner is an old contractor of Gaya Railway station operating since 1973 and the order has taken away his livelihood. It is also submitted that on the floor of the house the Railway Minister has given - 2 - assurance that old vendors shall not be removed. If the petitioner is given some protection for a while the new mechanism will take care of his problem. So far the vagueness of the notice contained in annexure-9 is concerned the same stands clarified by the communication contained in annexure-10 issued by Station Manager of Gaya Railway station on the subject. Petitioner is a licensee and not a lessee. His initial license expired way back in the year, 2005 but since the petitioner had paid license fee for the stall upto 28th February, 2010 he was directed to continue up till that date. The respondents have also taken care to invoke clause 14 of the agreement by virtue of which the petitioner has been given a months notice before termination of the license. The clause envisages issuance of notice of one month from either side for terminating the license. Petitioner has been given notice in this regard. As regards his submission with regard to assurance given by the Railway Minister on the floor of the House this Court is not inclined to express any opinion on the issue. The petitioner may be a beneficiary as and when the policy will be put in place. But in absence of any policy the petitioner cannot be given a lease of life beyond the license period. This writ application has no merit. The respondents’ action is in accordance with law. This writ application is dismissed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)