Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rajesh Kumar Mishra v. Union Of India And Another - WRIT - C No. 28972 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10106 (23 May 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.

That the petitioner had initially been granted licence for running a Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter Stand at Kanpur Anwarganj Railway Station for a period of 3 years from 09/3/2002 to 08/3/2005. The contention of the petitioner is that even after the expiry of the period of licence on 08/3/2005, the petitioner has been depositing certain licence fee on the oral instructions of the D.R.M. (Commercial), Eastern Railway, Lucknow in the hope that his  licence shall be renewed. He further contends that the action of the Railway Authorities in issuing a fresh tender notice is not justified.

This petition has been filed for not only quashing the tender notice issued in the Newspaper dated 25/4/2006, but also for a direction upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of licence or in the alternative refund the licence fee.

We are afraid that relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted by this Court. Once the term of the licence came to an end on 08/3/2005, the respondents are justified in issuing a fresh tender notice for the subsequent period. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also not been able to point out any term of the earlier licence which could have entitled him to seek extension of the period of licence. Even according to the case set up by the petitioner it is only on the basis of the oral instructions that he deposited the amount before the  Railway Authorities. We are of the opinion that no relief can accrue to the petitioner merely by depositing some amount under oral orders. It is, however open to the petitioner to seek relief before the appropriate forum for refund of fee, if any, deposited by him.

The writ petition  is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.    




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.