IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 673 of 2009 Between: South Central Railwaya Catering Helpers & Workers Labour Contract Cooperative Society Ltd., 9-3-356, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad, Rep. by the Branch Secretary, Dharmavaram, Anantapur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd., (IRCTC) Rep. by the Group General Manager, S.D. Road, Secunderabad. 2 Regional Manager, IRCTC , Plat Form NO. 6 (Upstairs) Railway Station Main Building, Guntakal, Anantapur District. 3 S. Ramachandrudu S/o.Not known VRR Licensee , Dronachalam Railway Station, Dronachalam, Kurnool District. 4 South Central Railway, Rep. by its General Manager, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an order direction or writ more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring that the action of the first respondent in issuing license No IRCTC/SCZ/LCS/GTL/CS dt. 31-12- 208 to the third respondent in relation to stalls No.1 and 2 on platform No.1 of Dharmavaram Railway Station is arbitrary, unlawful null and void and further set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.K.BALAGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.A.KRISHNAM RAJU The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed by the petitioner questioning the action of the 1st respondent in issuing license No. IRCTC/SCZ/LCS/GTL/CS dated 31.12.2008 to the 3rd respondent in regard to stall Nos.1 and 2 on platform No.1 of Dharmavaram Railway Station. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned standing counsel for the IRCTC and the learned standing counsel for the railways and at their request the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself. The case of the petitioner, a cooperative society, is that after the absorption of the commission vendors in other jobs in the railways, the stalls in various stations are being run by the helpers, who are the members of the petitioner society, on the basis of ad hoc arrangements with the 1st respondent – IRCTC by paying the annual fees. In the instant case, for the last 11 years, stall Nos.1 and 2 on platform No.1 of Dharmavaram Railway Station are being run by its members but without issuing any notice to them and without even calling for any tenders, the 1st respondent has granted permission to the 3rd respondent to run the said two stalls on platform No.1 arbitrarily. On instructions, the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent IRCTC submits that only as an adhoc arrangement, the 3rd respondent was granted permission to run the stalls and that in fact, they are going to call for tenders by way of paper publication and, therefore, the members of the petitioner association also can participate in the same by submitting their tenders. The learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent submits that pursuant to granting license on 31.12.2008, the 3rd respondent has already taken possession of the stalls and running the same. In view of the submission made by the learned standing counsel for the 1st respondent that the authorities are calling for tenders by the end of February 2009 in regard to the stalls in question and that the present arrangement is only an interim measure, learned counsel for all the parties submitted that the writ petition may be closed recording the said submission. Accordingly, the writ petition is closed. It is made clear that it is open for the petitioner as well as the 3rd respondent to participate in the tenders going to be called for by the authorities by the end of February, 2009. N.V.RAMANA,J DT.22.1.2009 msv