IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC THURSDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2011 / 23RD POUSHA 1932 WP(C).No. 34596 of 2010(Y) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- SRI.N.RAM LAL, RAM COTTAGE, 2ND/332, PANAYAM P.O., PERINAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR SRI.PRATHEESH.P SRI.SIJU KAMALASANAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BRANCH, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-14. 2. CHIEF CATERING INSPECTOR, QUILON RAILWAY STATION, KOLLAM-1. 3. THE STATION MASTER, RAILWAY STATION, KARUNAGAPPALLY-691518. SRI.R.SATHISH KUMAR, SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) NO. 34596 OF 2010 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of January, 2011 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the brother of late Anil Lal, who was granted the license to conduct VLRR/KPY for the period from 15/1/2007 to 14/1/2012. During the currency of the licence period, Anil Lal expired on 11/2/2010. Petitioner approached the 1st respondent to transfer the licence in his favour for the unexpired period. It is stated that, as directed by the respondents, although the petitioner had produced all documents in support of his claim, by Ext.P6, the request of the petitioner has been rejected. It is challenging Ext.P6, the writ petition has been filed. 2. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that admittedly he is the brother of the deceased licencee and that after having made the petitioner produce the documents, which he did, it was not open to the respondents to have rejected the claim by Ext.P6. 3. The case was adjourned with direction to the learned standing counsel for the respondents to obtain instructions in the matter. Accordingly, the learned Standing counsel has obtained WPC No. 34596/10 :2 : instructions and submits that only in cases where the licencee made nomination at the time of entering into the licence agreement, the policy of the Railway permits transfer of licence in favour of such nominees. It is stated that, in this case, admittedly, the deceased did not make any nomination in favour of the petitioner, and therefore, the request of the petitioner has been rejected. 4. Petitioner can claim transfer of the licence in his favour only if the policy of the Railway permits such a transfer. In this case, although transfer is permissible, such transfer can only be in favour of a nominee, who has been nominated at the time when the licence agreement is executed. Admittedly petitioner has not been shown as nominee at the time when the deceased entered into the licence. If that be so, the claim of the petitioner is impermissible in terms of the policy formulated by the Railway, and if so, Railway cannot be faulted for the view they have taken in Ext.P6. Writ petition is dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp