1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.466 OF 2008 Abdul Gaffar & Ors. .. Petitioners Versus Central Railway Shopping Premises Coop.Housing Socy. .. Respondents Mr.V.S.Kapse for petitioners Mr.Pandian for Union of India. R.M.Patne for State Mr. S.S.Kanetkar for Respondent No.1. Mr.S.K.Kulshrestha, Chief Engineer/G/CR/CSTM present CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 25th March 2008 P.C. . This order is in furtherance of the earlier order dated 7th/10th March 2008 and must be read in the backdrop of the communication dated 11th March 2008 from Mumbai Division of Central Railway to the Competent Authority. 2 2. On the last occasion Mr.Pandian had placed before me a copy of communication which was received on 20th March 2008. The communication is from the Head Quarters Office, Engineering branch, M.C.S.T. Central Railway. The communication is dated 19th March 2008 and is addressed to Sr.DEN (CO) BB. That refers to a letter dated 11th March 2008 from this authority and the Competent Authority has informed the Senior Divisional Engineer that the proposal submitted vide letter dated 11th March 2008 cannot be accepted as the same is not in conformity with some policy of the railway board. This competent authority has decided that permission of shopping complex on railway lands cannot be given. 3. Reasons assigned in the communication are that the proposed station (Kurla) is not a wayside station. The policy is applicable only to a wayside station. 3 4. When this matter was argued before me on earlier occasion, it proceeded on the basis that the railways desired that all shop premises (in all 35) which are on the railway land should be removed and the land becomes available to the railway in vacant state. Further the Railways were agreeable to allot alternate premises/land provided the shopkeepers organise themselves into a coop.society. The matter has proceeded on that basis as is clear from the order passed on 7/10th March 2008. There is no need of reproducing the said order. 5. Further, what was before this Court when the order was passed is not just an affidavit of one Salim Khan, Divisional Manager, L & M of Central Railway, Mumbai Division but annexed therewith all policy circulars of the Railways. Further, the coop.society which is also impleaded as respondent has filed an affidavit of its 4 authorised officer/ Gen.Secretary. It has referred to several aspects of the matter, including payment of licence fees and other charges. It has also enclosed therewith undertaking of six persons (disputed shop keepers) who have undertaken before this Court to vacate the premises provided they are included in the list which is to be scrutinised by the Railways. This Court after hearing both sides had passed a detailed order and empowered Railways to verify and scrutinise the list also. It is in such circumstances that the request of the petitioners to quash and set aside the impugned order was not gone into. The entire matter proceeded on the basis that the railway desired that its land must come back to it and at the same time, they would abide by such representations as are made to the society of the shopkeepers. 6. Now it is informed by Mr.Pandian that the 5 railway board which is competent authority is not agreeable to grant any land to the shopkeepers or the society. 7. It is in such circumstances that Mr.Kapse appearing for petitioners submit that the Court should issue appropriate directions to the railway authorities so that final decision is taken by the authorities with regard to allotment of land. They submit that the shopkeepers and the Coop.Society has done everything that is required to be done and is agreeable to further terms and conditions but decision must be taken so that shopkeepers who are deprived of their source of livelihood get some land or premises for carrying on their business. These are individual small time shopkeepers and, therefore, according to Mr.Kapse and Mr.Kanetkar the railway board must take sympathetic and proper view of the matter. 6 8. Pursuant to the directions of this Court, Chief Engineer is present. Mr.Pandian appearing for railway authorities states that the matter will now have to be decided only by the Railway Board. It is railway board alone which is competent authority and although all officers at the local level have taken appropriate decision, the final authority is the railway board and, therefore, its approval would be necessary. 9. It is in these peculiar circumstances and considering that the railways have gone ahead in the matter as is evidenced from the letter dated 11th March 2008 addressed to the competent authority that it must consider the proposal emanating from the central railway and particularly, Mumbai Division, afresh, in the light of its prevalent policies so also bearing in mind the peculiar facts of this case. The competent authority (railway board) shall consider this proposal in pursuance of these 7 directions and communicate its final order to all concerned on or before 31st May 2008. It would be open for the respondent No.1 Coop.Society of shopkeepers to make an independent representation and if that is forwarded and received by the competent authority, even that shall also be scrutinised within the time frame and a decision communicated thereon before stipulated date. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order. All pleas of both sides with regard to allotment of shop premises/land are kept open. Petition disposed of in the above terms. (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J)