1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 03-11-2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD)No.11676 of 2011 And M.P.(MD) No.1 of 2011 Mr.Shri A.Soosai Raj .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, DRM. Office of Madurai Railway Junction, Madurai Town. 2.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office of Madurai Railway Junction, Madurai Town. .. Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issue of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order of the second respondent passed in his letter No.U/C.42/Advt/833/B/Front elevation, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch at Madurai-Southern Railway dated 29.9.2011, quash the same and thereby directing the respondents to permit this petitioner to continue his advertisement/contract work of display of printed stickers on the front elevation Madurai Railway Station main entry in the space of 300 sq. ft., for the total agreed period of one year. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Chelladurai For Respondents : Mr.S.Manohar, Standing Counsel for Railways. O R D E R The petitioner has come up with the above writ petition challenging the cancellation of a license granted by the respondents to the petitioner to exhibit display boards, in the Railway Junction at Madurai. 2. Heard Mr.K.Chelladurai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Manohar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. By a letter dated 2.8.2011, the second respondent communicated to the petitioner, the approval of the competent authority to the proposal of the petitioner for the display of printed boards/stickers measuring 300 sq. ft., in the Railway https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 Junction at Madurai. By the same communication, the petitioner was also directed to remit a sum of Rs.5,12,400/- towards annual rental charges, inclusive of two months advance rent by cash. 4. Accordingly, the petitioner remitted the entire amount of Rs.5,12,400/-, out of which Rs.73,200/- represented the rental advance for two months and the balance represented the annual rental charges. 5. Suddenly, by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 29.9.2011, the second respondent withdrew permission to the petitioner. The reason stated in the impugned order is that a sole rights contractor for Madurai Junction Facade has raised an objection to the allotment of advertisement space to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court. 6. In order to appreciate the issues raised in the writ petition, it is necessary to extract the relevant portion of the impugned order which reads as follows:- "Further to this office letters under reference, it is advised that the sole rights contractor for Madurai Junction Facade has raised an objection to the allotment of advertisement space to you in the facade. The Contractor is invoking the conditions of contract in support of his son. Please, therefore, be advised that the permission granted to you in this case stands withdrawn. You may, however, choose alternate area/space for the display of the advertisement already permitted which will be considered on merits." 7. A reading of the impugned order would show two things viz., (i) that the permission granted to the petitioner was not withdrawn by the second respondent, on account of any reason of their own, but at the instigation of the sole rights Contractor and (ii) that the sudden withdrawal of permission granted to the petitioner, was without even any kind of opportunity to the petitioner. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondents collected (i) two months rental advance and (ii) the entire annual rental charges. After having done so, the minimum that is required of the respondents is at least to issue a notice and cite some acceptable and justifiable reason. Both are absent in the impugned communication. 9. In the counter affidavit filed, the respondents have raised two objections viz., (i) that the letter dated 2.8.2011 granting permission to the petitioner itself stipulated that the respondents had a right to cancel the contract at any time and (ii) that the area in question was reserved for Train Indication Information https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 Boards/Screen. 10. It is true that the letter granting permission reserves the right for the respondents to terminate the license at any time. But it does not mean that the said right can be exercised in an arbitrary manner. The impugned order does not disclose any injury suffered by the respondents on account of the license granted to the petitioner. The impugned order cites only the objection of the sole rights Contractor. Therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to invoke the right reserved for them to terminate the license. 11. In so far as the second objection is concerned, the same is nothing but an attempt to improve upon the impugned order. If the impugned order contains one reason and it is sought to be improved by the counter affidavit, the same cannot be accepted, as laid down by the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi {AIR 1978 SC 851}. 12. In view of the above, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(Crl.Side) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Divisional Railway Manager, Southern Railway, DRM. Office of Madurai Railway Junction, Madurai Town. 2.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Divisional Office of Madurai Railway Junction, Madurai Town. +1cc to Mr.K.Chelladurai, Advocate, Sr.No.38204 +1cc to Mr.S.Manohar, Advocate, Sr.No.38210 W.P.(MD)No.11676 of 2011 03-11-2011 svn SMA/16.11.2011/5C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/