IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JANUARY 2009 / 8TH MAGHA 1930 WP(C).No. 2830 of 2009(J) ------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------- A.AYYAPPAN, LICENSEE, CHEMIST STALL/TVC TC 23/1297, CHERUVILAKATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI. K.SIJU SRI.R.RAMESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.N.B.SUNIL NATH,SC, RAILWAYS FOR R1 & 2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ============== W.P.(C) NO. 2830 OF 2009 (J) ==================== Dated this the 28th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is running a Chemist Stall in the Trivandrum Railway Station. By Ext.P1, he was asked to vacate from the premises and that was called in question before this court by filing WP(C) No.32606/07 and that writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P2 judgment, where taking note of the fact that the lease period of the petitioner had expired as early as on 1/11/2007, relief for continuance in the premises was declined. Further the direction of the Railway contained in Ext.P1 was also upheld, it being a policy decision of the Railways. 2. Ext.P2 judgment has become final and in this writ petition what the petitioner now contends is the policy reflected in Ext.P1 is based on the railway circular No.50/2000 and that the Railway themselves have deferred the implementation of the circular. According to the counsel, therefore, petitioner should be allowed to continue his occupation of the stall. WPC 2830/09 :2 : 3. In my view the implementation or non implementation of the circular is irrelevant in so far as the petitioner's continuance of the shop is concerned. This is for the reason that the lease period of the petitioner had expired on 1/11/2007. If that be so, petitioner cannot claim any right to continue his occupation of the shop in question. I am not persuaded to grant any relief. Writ petition fails and is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp