@? ftF.R.- OF : : S.R. CJ. WmTPETJT}ONNai7iaOF2QOS ^. versus 1. 2. 3. Kumar, 39 son of Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Paras of jndia, Gurudwara Road, DJstt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) Union of indJa, through : Generai Manager, South Eastern Railway, Garden Reach, Koikata QA/est BengaE) Divlslonal Manager, South Railway, Divjsjonaj Office, Bilaspur (CG) Senior DivfejonQi CommerciaS Manager, SECR, South (C-.G.) -Station South Raljway, Distt. Durg (Chhattisgarh) "^- ; Mr. for the petltioner. Mr. vinay Harit.leamed Senlor Counsel wifh Mr. Narayan Shrivastava, counsei on ORALORDER (Passed on 13tn February, The petitioner i3 a gmdugite unempioyed youth ^nd a perrnanent resia?ent of Durg District. He applied to th@ Railway AdminJsfration for grarst of licence to function as Railway Traveiing Servic-e i1 to his h@ to Traveling for a of 3 commencing from 3-12-1999 and ending 2-12-2002. Wejl before the of of jjcence, the an to the Djvj.slonal Comme-rclaS for renewai of the licence. for a further period of 3 years from 3-12-2002 to 2-12-2005. Then, came the impugned 26-11-2002 as Annexure P-1. !t reads as :- "SOUTH RAILWAY 'v:- ^. No.COM./TC/RTSA/96/PT.I!/02 Offjceofthe. Sr. Divjsionai Bilaspur Divlsion 26.11.2002 To, Sri Manoj Kumar, Compfex, Opp: SBI, (CG). Reg: Rail Travei Agent. Durg. Ref : 1) Your JetterNo.NIL dated NiL 2) This of even no. 25.11 .02. Sjr, to the it is to you that your appiication for renew/ai of RTSA has been examined. As the Raiiway Administration has already calied for fresh applEeations for awarding Sicense for RTSA at Durg, your request can not be consldered for renewal nf RTSA after expiry of tenure/period i.e. 02.12.2002. Thankingyou, Yours sincerely, Sd/ Sr. Divl, CommL Bilaspur Copyto: Chlef Station Manager, Durg for iniormation & necessarv action. @? —3>- [, Copy to : Chief Reser^'ation Supervisor / Durg for informatlon & necessai'y action. Copy to : Chief CommerciaJ Inspeotor / Durg for Jnformation & action. Sd/ Sr. Divi. Commi. Bilaspur" Trte aggrleved by t-he endorsement by She •Senlor Commercia) Manager, the thlrd respondent herein, has writ for intervention of the Court. ^'^' 2. i counse! for the Learned coyn-sel for the petitioner, drawing my attention to RuSe 7 of the Rulea made by the Centrai Government in exercsse of the powers conferred by Clause (g) of sub-Saction (1) of Section 47 of th©indlan Railways Act, 1890, wouid th@ to the as per the and the in the not to the Is and couid not be in !aw. Senior Counsei on of the - Raiiways, Derconfra.woufd supportttie impugned endorsement 3. Havlng the for the S an error apparent on the face of the Impugned endorsoment The reason by the thira' respondent not to renew the licenoe In favour of the potitionor is totally irrolovant and Qxtranoous to tho docjsjon-makirsg in or Rule 7 of the Rules. Rule 7 as :- ^t- FS7. of - A ticence shats\ unless the competent authority for reasons to be in writing in any be rene^vabte for three years Qnd shall be 30 ronewable from time to tsme and the of ruie 4 to the the as they apply to the grant thereof." 14; ^- •£:- The In 7 Is plaln, and unambiguous and St not of than one meanmo. The on(y ofRuie 7 is that a hact to be for 3 be so from time to time uniess the competent authorSty, the thSrc} respondent In this for reasons to be recorded In writjng decided not to renevy the IJoence. ft J©not the aaae of the th.ird re^pondent on reoeipt of the appilcation from the petiiioner for renev^al of IJcenco, he applied hSs n-Sina' to th© of the petitioner and for some weighfy and substentiai Of HB not to the and in that in On the the for to the third dia he rece.ived the of the for of licence. At thte it to be naoticed the impugned endorsement was tesyed even before- the term of the earlier lioence came to an end on 2-12- 2002. The impugnod endor9©m@nt'would, in unmtetakabte terms, tetl that the of the for renewai of not for tha and the had for for for Traveilng It is to that In the Impugned endorsement, the thtrd respondent ba-s flouted the of Rule 7 of the Ruies. In the first place, the third respondent ought not to have for fresh applioatJon^ for awardlna Jioenoe Jn place of the IJcence earfier 7 .—5^— to the the of licenc^ expir@d. on fhe of tne of Rute 7, the to for a not to the in favour of the petitloner. Looking from elther way, the endorsement, J Is ^x Bnd of the statutory Ruie 7.. 4. The contention of Mr. Vinav Harit Senior Counsel on behalf of the Raiiway^ that though under RuEe 7, the petitioner wa^ to seek renev^ai of licence. he had to comply wlth the of Rute 4 of the hc did not comply with Ruio 4 he Is not to of Slcence. There is no for this Court to the of Counsei on of the to the C-ourt in 8 of the judgment In the of GIIS and another vs= The Deihi aiid others1 jt as under: - "when a func-tionan/ an on certain grounds, ite vaiidity must be judged by the reasons so mentjoned snd be supplemented by fresh in the of or an order in the beginnsng may, by the time it comes to court on account of a chaiienge, get by grounds later brouaht out. We may here draw attention to She of J. in GAIR -1952 SC 16) (at p.18): "Publlc orders pubHciy made, In exercjse of a authorifry' cannot b@ construed tn the tight of explanations given by the officer -making the of he or of was in his mind, or what he intended to do. Public orders made by public authorities are to and are to 1. AlR 1 e.78 SC 35-1 (at para 8) -€- the actlng and conduct of to whoi'n are addressed and must be construed objectiveiy with to the jn the order Itself'." The not that the appllcatlon made by th@ for of the on the now urged before the Court, that 1-3 to the petitioner dld not comply wlth the requiremente of Ruie 4 ofthe Rules. 5. in the result ^nd for the foregoing reason^, the writ petitlon 13 aliowed with quantified at Rs.3,000^ (Rupees Three Thousand) within too weete. A to the r^^pondente to the of the for of to act as Traveling Agent, in accordance with taw and sn the of Rule 7 and wlthin a period of slx from the of of a copy of thls order. Sd/- Chief Justice