THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.8049 OF 2010 Dated 12th April, 2010 Between: Balabadhra Sarveswara Gupta …Petitioner And The Union of India and four others …Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad Counsel for the respondents: Sri T.S.Venkataramana The Court made the following ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in ignoring my right and interest and seeking to award contract to third party contrary to the catering policy-2005, order of the 5th respondent dated 01.04.2010 made in proceedings No.2010:irctc/ro/bza/licensees/EE, directing me to vacate the existing Vegetarian Light Refreshment Room (VLR) area situated at Eluru Railway Station and in not offering the license to run the Cell Kitchen and further directing to pay the alleged license fee arrears as arbitrary, illegal, unjust violative of principles of natural justice, discriminatory, colourable exercise of power, violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to issue license to me to run the cell kitchen at Eluru Railway Station.” At the hearing, Sri C.V.R.Rudra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that after the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner was evicted from the premises in his occupation. He further submitted that the details of the agency in whose favour the “cell kitchen” contract was awarded were not known to the petitioner and therefore, he could not challenge the award of contract in view of the urgency for filing the writ petition in order to protect his possession. He stated that since the petitioner was already dispossessed, he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh writ petition in order to question the award of contract in favour of the third party and the petitioner’s dispossession. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner in terms of the prayer made. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition as withdrawn, WPMP No.10360 of 2010 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Dated 12th April, 2010 vrn