IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 25970 of 2008(N)
1. SYED SIRAJUDDIN, S/O.SYED CHANSAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL
... Respondent
2. INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM
For Petitioner :SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.M.C.CHERIAN,SC,RAILWAY CATERING
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.SIRI JAGAN
Dated :19/06/2009
O R D E R
S. Siri Jagan, J.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
W. P (C) No. 25970 of 2008
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dated this, the 19th June, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner is an aspirant for conducting a stall at Calicut
Railway Station. The Railways decided to have a new policy
regarding allotment of stalls. They have charted a reservation policy,
whereby 3% of the stalls would be allotted to OBCs and 3% to
minority category, apart from other reservations. The petitioner
claims to be eligible for allotment under both the above categories.
However, his claim has not been considered. He was formerly
running a fruit stall at the Calicut Railway Station. As per Ext. P4
notice, the Railways have converted that existing fruit stall into a
bakery stall for allotment to scheduled castes. Complaining about the
same the petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P(C) No.
14040/2008. In that writ petition, I directed the 1st respondent to
consider and pass appropriate orders on Ext. P5 representation in
that writ petition, which is Ext. P8 representation in the writ petition
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, at any rate,
within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.
The petitioner submits that when the 1st respondent refused to accept
the judgment, he sent it by speed post, which was received by the 1st
respondent on 15-7-2008. But, by Ext. P9, referring to a non-existent
personal hearing on 14-7-2008, the 1st respondent rejected the claims
of the petitioner. In addition to the contention on merits, the
petitioner challenges Ext. P9 on the ground of violation of the
direction in Ext. P7 judgment insofar as the petitioner had not been
heard as directed in that judgment.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the 1st
respondent, wherein they would assert that the petitioner had been
heard on 14-7-2008. I am not inclined to go into that controversy
insofar as the petitioner only wants an opportunity of being heard.
W.P.C. No. 25970/08 -: 2 :-
In the above circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with
a direction to the 1st respondent to pass fresh orders as directed in
Ext. P7 judgment, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the
petitioner. The petitioner shall present himself before the 1st
respondent for hearing on 25-6-2009. The 1st respondent shall hear
the petitioner on that date. The petitioner shall be allowed to produce
whatever documents he wants to produce in support of his case and
arguments shall be heard on those documents also. Pursuant
thereto, orders shall be passed on or before 13-7-2009.
Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge.
Tds/