THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.NO.24876 of 2005 DATED: 28.01.2008 Between: K. Rani. ..Petitioner. and Union of India, rep. by its General Manager,South Central Railway,Secunderabad and others. ..Respondents. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S.NARAYANA W.P.No.24876 of 2005 ORDER: Heard Sri M. Radha Krishna, learned counsel representing the writ petitioner and Sri R.S.Murthy, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. This Court issued rule nisi on 22.11.2005, and granted interim suspension in W.P.M.P.No.31968 of 2005 and also granted interim stay in W.P.M.P.No.31969 of 2005 3. This writ petition is filed praying for a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd respondent in canceling the award issued in favour of the petitioner without following the procedure, as arbitrary, illegal, capricious, violation of the principles of natural justice and set aside the same, and consequently declare the notice No.4/2005 (Halts) issued by the 3rd respondent, which was published in Vaartha/Andhra Jyothi daily on 10.11.2005 as void. 4. It is stated that the 3rd respondent herein had issued a paper notification No. 3 of 2005 in Vaartha daily, dated 17.07.2005, inviting applications from the interested persons to sell the railway tickets, which are called as “Halt Agents” pertaining to the concerned stations in Vijayawada Division of South Central Railways. The main object behind this is to encourage the unemployed youth. The period stipulated is for five years. 5. It is also averred that as per the notification, local residents will be given preference and the individual had to make an application on or before 18.08.2005. Hence, the petitioner shifted to Tenneru and residing there. Her husband is also not doing any job. As there is no earning member in her family, she applied for “Tenneru” station which was shown as Sl.No.24 of the notification, with all relevant documents prescribed by the 3rd respondent herein. 6. It is also stated that after receiving all the documents, the 3rd respondent in his proceedings No.B/c.210/Halts/TNRU/2005, dated 25.08.2005, sent a call letter to her to attend for an interview on 05.09.2005 at 10.00 P.M. at his office. 7. Further, it is averred that as per the instructions, she attended the interview on 05.09.2005. It is pertinent to mention here that only three persons were attended the interview. In his proceedings No.B/C/210/Halts/TNR/2005 dated 22.09.2005 the 2nd respondent had conveyed that she was selected as local agent for Tenneru Halt Station. In the same proceedings, he further informed that she should deposit Rs.2000/- as security deposit to the SS/CBSR/ incharge of Upputuru and she should execute an agreement on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs.100/-. It is further informed that the Station i.e., Tenneru Railway Halt will be handed over only on depositing security deposit and also after executing the agreement within seven days from the date of receipt of the letter. 8. It is averred that the petitioner deposited the said amount on 28.09.2005 and also remitted Rs.100/- non-judicial stamp paper to the authorities for execution of agreement. By an order, dated 30.09.2005 in No.B/c/210/Halts/TNR/2005-2010 the 3rd respondent was pleased to select her as Halt Agent to work at Tenneru Halt Station and permitted to operate the halt station w.e.f. 01.10.2005. The period of license of sale tickets at the halt station is for a period of five years only from 01.10.2005 to 30.09.2010. In spite of the specific direction given by the 3rd respondent, the CCI had not handed over the halt station to her. By a letter, dated 22.10.2005, she informed to the 3rd respondent that the station had not been handed over to her by CCI/Gudivada. The 3rd respondent received the above letter on 23.10.2005. She stated that without giving any reply to her letter, the 3rd respondent, by his proceedings NO.B/C/201/Halt/TNR/2005 dated 24.10.2005, cancelled the allotment of work of issuing tickets at Tenneru station due to administrative reasons. Thereafter, she made a representation dated 04.11.2005 requesting the authorities to reconsider her case and the same was received by the authorities on 05.11.2005. In spite of her representation, the authorities without issuing any notice to her, cancelled the same. As against that, the present writ petition is filed. 9. Further, it is stated that the decision taken by the 3rd respondent is illegal and is liable to be set aside for the following grounds: (a) The respondents cannot cancel the award without issuing any reasons. (b) After awarding the award to her to work as halt agent by order, dated 30.09.2005, the respondents are estopped from calling any fresh applications. (c) After concluding the contract by way of offer and acceptance, the respondents unilaterally and without following the procedure contemplated under law cannot cancel the award i.e., work entrusted to her. (d) After awarding the award of licence to her, the respondents unilaterally without issuing any notice without hearing her objections, cannot cancel the work entrusted to her, which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. (e) The respondents are having an obligation to dispose of her representation dated 04.11.2005 before passing the impugned order. 10. It is also stated that subsequent to her representation, dated 04.11.2005, the authorities without considering her representation had issued a notification No.4/2005 (Halts) and the same was published in Vaartha/Andhra Jyothi daily paper on 10.11.2005. A reading of the notice No. 4 of 2005 (Halts) published in Vaartha discloses that the permanent residents of the particular District people alone are competent to apply and it further discloses that the last date for receiving applications was 15.12.2005. 11. It is further stated that a close reading of the notice No.4 /2005 (Halts) published in Andhra Jyothi discloses that the permanent residents of the particular village people alone are competent to apply and it further discloses that the last date for receiving applications was 05.12.2005. 12. It is also stated that Notice No.4/2005 (Halts) issued in two daily papers are not in conformity with the other one and on this ground the notice is liable to be quashed. It is stated that the authorities cannot issue fresh notification without considering her case. Hence, the notification No.4/2005, dated 10.11.2005, is liable to be set aside. 13. Several other facts also had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 14. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, several averments made in the affidavit had been denied. It is averred that passenger halts are opened between two stations for convenience of the traveling public and as such Halts are to deal with only passenger traffic according to the instructions issued by the railway administration from time to time. This division had been appointing Halt Agent for selling railway tickets on commission basis in tune with the policy announced by the Ministry of Railways, where there is no financial justification for running departmentally. As per policy in vogue, the Halt Agent be selected on the application basis. 15. Further it is averred that the Government of India, Ministry of Railways had issued policy instructions, vide its letters, dated 17.05.1999, 08.06.1999, 15.09.1999, 08.09.2000, 03.04.2001, 18.04.200, 17.01.2001 and 24.06.2005. In regard for opening of a halt station, closure of uneconomic halt stations, appointment of halt contractors, payment of commission to halt contractors, extension of booking zone of halt stations, up-gradation of halt stations into flag stations, down-gradation of flag stations into contractor operated halt stations, changing the names of railway stations etc., As per policy dated 17.05.1999 at para IV (a)(1), the halt contractor should be a permanent resident of a place where halt station is opened, and the same stands unchanged even as per the latest policy letter, dated 24.06.2005. 16. It is averred that in tune with the policy guidelines, the division had called for applications in the prescribed format through an advertisement in local dailies for appointment of Halt Agent for five years period at 39 halt stations duly fixing the last date as 18.08.2005 for submission of the applications. In this connection, it is pertinent to mention here that the said advertisement got published in Vaartha daily on 17.07.2005. The said advertisement categorically stated that preference will be given to the residents of the concerned village. President/Sarpanch of the village should certify the applications. The applications were called for ‘Tenneru Halt Station’ also vide aforesaid notification. The aforesaid notification indicated the percentage of commission payable to the ‘Halt Agents’ and the selection is purely contractual in nature, candidates called for interview will have to attend the same at their cost. In this present case, ‘interview’ means the applicant required to produce the relevant documents in original before the committee to substantiate the claims made in original application, but not otherwise. Since, the Ministry of Railways categorically specified that selection will be by a draw of lots, drawn by any child if there is more than one suitable candidate, the division had followed the principle for selection of a ‘Halt Agent’ in the presence of all eligible applicants. In the instant case also, the petitioner was selected through the draw conducted in front of all the two applicants on 05.09.2005, and accordingly, she was offered license vide letter dated 22.09.2005,and on receipt of payment of due amounts, the said license was confirmed vide letter, dated 30.09.2005. But, before handing over of the halt to the petitioner from the existing license holder namely Sri K. Sairaja, Tenneru, the competent authority had received phone calls from the villagers stating that (a) the petitioner is not belonging to their village, (b) No notification exhibited at Tenneru Halt Station (c) there is no circulation for Vaartha newspaper in their village. 17. It is also averred that the administration had also received written complaints stating that the petitioner did not belong to their village. At that stage, the petitioner also produced a residence certificate dated:-nil- issued by Sarpanch, Tenneru Gram Panchayat, Kankipadu Mandal, stating that the petitioner is residing in the said village only from 05.10.2005 at door NO.2-30 of Tenneru village i.e., subsequent to the issuance of allotment letter. The competent authority-2nd respondent considered entire issue including shifting of her residence from Tarigoppala to Tenneru, and opined that the petitioner is not native of Tenneru village for eligibility of license in terms of policy, and accordingly, ordered for release of fresh notification. Accordingly, 3rd respondent cancelled the allotment made to the petitioner vide letter, dated 24.10.2005, and issued the advertisement calling for applications from the permanent residents of the concerned village in accordance with the policy letter, dated 17.05.1999 through its Head Quarters for publication of the same in local dailies. Accordingly, the said advertisement was got published in Andhra Jyothi/Vaartha/Deccan Chronical on 10.11.2005. 18. Further, several averments had been specifically denied. It is also averred that the respondent called for applications for allotment of license of 1. Kolanukonda, 2. Kesavaram, 3. Satyavada, 4. Sivadevunichikkala, 5. Vadlamannadu and 6. Tenneru Halts Stations vide tender notice No.4/2005 (Halts) published in Vaartha/Andhra Jyothi/Deccan Chronical on 10.11.2005 duly fixing the date as 15.12.2005 as the last date for submission of the applications. The administration could not finalize the said applications in view of the interim orders passed in WPMP No.31968 of 2005 in W.P.No.24876 of 2005 . It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is no way connected to other five halts in the aforesaid notification. 19. Several other facts in detail had been narrated in the affidavit filed in support of the vacate application by the respondents. 20. As can be seen from the respective stands taken by the parties, it appears, at a particular stage for the reasons best known on certain alleged complaints, the present action had been taken, and by virtue of which, the petitioner was deprived of the right accrued to her. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that it would be just and proper on the part of the respondents to put the writ petitioner on notice, consider the explanation, if any, and take appropriate decision in this regard. This Court is inclined to take this view in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, especially in the light of the specific stand taken in the counter-affidavit of the respondents. 21. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of directing the respondents to put the petitioner on notice, receive the explanation of the petitioner, consider the same and take appropriate decision in this regard. No order as to costs. _________________ P.S.NARAYANA, J Dated . 28.01.2008 SJ