IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 34596 of 2010(Y)
1. SRI.N.RAM LAL, RAM COTTAGE, 2ND/332,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL
... Respondent
2. CHIEF CATERING INSPECTOR, QUILON
3. THE STATION MASTER, RAILWAY STATION,
For Petitioner :SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :13/01/2011
O R D E R
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