WP 3326/11 1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.3326/2011 Ishwar Vithalrao Pinnalwar V/s The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Hyderabad Division, South Central Railway & others. _______________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office | Memoranda of Coram, | Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's | orders or directions | and Registrar's orders | Shri Kishor C. Sant, Advocate for petitioner. Shri P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for respondent nos.1 to 4. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & S.S. SHINDE, JJ. Date: 02.05.2011 Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. By way of this petition, the petitioner, who has been given licence to run tea stall till 30.4.2011 by the Railway administration, has filed this petition challenging the decision of Railway administration in not renewing his licence beyond 30.4.2011. He prays that till the fresh tender is allotted, he may be allowed to run the tea stall. Learned counsel for the Railways WP 3326/11 2 submits that since the tenure of the petitioner’s licence is over, this Court cannot compel the Railway administration to continue his licence any further. The learned counsel for the Railway administration states that the committee has considered the case of the petitioner and the committee hash found that there were four penalties imposed on the petitioner, out of which two were of water adulteration, which are serious in nature. In our view, this Court cannot pass orders only on the basis of sympathy and even sympathy is also not required to be in this case in view of what is stated by the Railway administration. The petitioner, who is given contract to run the tea stall, is not expected to give adulterated water to the passengers. In any case, since the committee of experts has considered the claim of the petitioner for further continuation of his contract and once the committee has found that it is not a fit case in which the WP 3326/11 3 petitioner’s existing contract should be continued further, this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction, cannot interfere in such a case. It is for the Railway administration to invite and finalise the fresh contract. The prayer made by the petitioner that till the new tenders are finalised, he may be allowed to run the tea stall cannot be granted in the aforesaid circumstances. In view of what is stated above, the petition is rejected. It is clarified that since the committee has considered various aspects and since the petitioner has no fundamental right to get his licence further extended after the period is over, even if the petitioner has not been given hearing before continuing the contract beyond 30.4.2011, no fault can be found with the Railway administration. (S.S. Shinde, J.) (P.B. Majmudar, J.) Dt/- 02.05.2011 ndk/c251110