Dismissed

Suresh Chandra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Allahabad HC1 Jul 2021WRIC/8117/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition filed by a licensee of a shop at Prayagraj Railway Station. The petitioner sought a direction to decide a representation for fee reduction, re-adjustment of allegedly illegal higher fees, and restraint against interference in his stall. The court held that a licensee takes the license with eyes wide open and cannot turn around later, failing to make out a case

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed with no relief granted to the petitioner.

Suresh Chandra Vs Union of India and 7 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8117 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Suresh Chandra Respondent :- Union Of India And 7 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shikha Singh,Naseem Rufi Q Alrafio B.M. Mugaanii Counsel for Respondent :- Vivek Kumar Rai,Navaneet Chandra Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Gautam Chowdhary,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents - Railways.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed praying for the following relief:

¶7

"A. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned Respondent to decide the details representation dated 05.11.2020 in reply to the letter No.C.V./R.Piti No.45670/2014, dated 0510.2020), dated 02-052020.

¶8

B. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the concerned Respondent to re-adjust the increased license fees as earlier illegally taken by the Respondent.

¶9

C. To issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the concerned Respondent not to make any interference in the peaceful running of Khan Pan Stall (Catering Unit P.f.4 and 6) Prayagraj Railway Station. In the garb of demanding illegal finance through increasing license fee."

¶10

The petitioner is a licencee of a shop at platform No.4/5 at Railway Station, Prayagraj. By means of his representation, the petitioner wants reduction in licence fee on the basis that from others, a lower licence fee is being charged.

¶11

Sri Navneet Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents - Railways states on instructions that similarly situated lincencees/ allottees are paying higher amount than the petitioner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the nature of dispute being raised by the petitioner, we do not find any good reason to entertain the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner is a licencee and has taken the licence with eyes wide open. Therefore, it is not open for him to turn around. The petitioner has completely failed to make out a case for issuance of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶13

Order Date :- 1.7.2021 NLY

Suresh Chandra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Chandra v. Union of India and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tanveer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ganesh Dutt Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pradeep Singh and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt.Chameli Devi Vs State of U P and 2 Others

Chandrika Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amrun Nisha Vs State of U P and 4 Others