1 WP-804.03 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 804 OF 2003 Raj Babu Sahani : Petitioner versus Union of India : Respondent Mr. R V Pai with Ms. B R Pai with Mr.Sagar Khadilkar and Mrs. Seema N Rathod i/by Kezer Kharawala for the Petitioner. Mr. A N Samant for the Union of India. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR, R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 13th October 2011 P.C. 1 The above Petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed for challenging the communication dated 22/7/2002 addressed by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) Mumbai, CST to the advocate for the Petitioner communicating the reasons for rejection of the application of the Petitioner for appointment as a Railway Travel Service Agent (RTSA). The said communication discloses that the said rejection is for two fold reasons viz. firstly the premises in question in respect of which the licence is sought do not meet the requirements of the policy, and secondly that for the area in question for the which the claim is sought, no licences are available. 2 The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner Shri Pai draws our attention to a letter dated 21/11/2001 (Exhibit-A) addressed by the Petitioner to the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) in which letter the 2 WP-804.03 Petitioner has communicated to the said officer that he has executed an agreement on 8/10/2011 entitling him to office premises in the same building of a larger area of about 200 sq.ft. with better facilities for the customers and for a longer duration. The impugned communication discloses that the said fact mentioned in the said letter dated 21/11/2001 and the agreement in question dated 8/10/2001 which was annexed to the said letter of the Petitioner has not been considered by the competent authority i.e. The Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) whilst rejecting the said application. The said authority, as can be seen from the communication, has only adverted to the premises wherein the Petitioner was carrying on business earlier at the time of application i.e. the premises admeasuring 150 sq.ft. Since it is the Petitioner’s case that he has premises of a larger area of 200 sq.ft. by virtue of the agreement dated 8/10/2001 and since the said case has not been considered, in our view, it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned communication dated 22/7/2002 (Exhibit-C) and remand the matter back to the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) for fresh consideration on the touch stone of the letter of the Petitioner dated 21/11/2001 and the agreement dated 8/10/2001 which was annexed thereto. The said authority would consider the said application of the Petitioner in accordance with law and having due regard to the extant rules. In so far as the said consideration of the Petitioner’s application is concerned, we express no opinion in the matter and it is for the authority to take an independent decision in accordance with the rules and the policy. The said decision to be taken within a period of three 3 WP-804.03 months from date. Till the decision is taken the Petitioner will not act as RTSA as per the policy of the railways. Rule to accordingly stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms with parties to bear their respective costs. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]