Disposed

Satish Y. Acharya v. Union of India

Bombay HC8 May 2024WP/1293/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Railway authorities terminated the petitioners' licences to run stalls on a railway platform without any hearing or show cause notice. Holding this breached natural justice, the Court quashed the termination letters and directed fresh show cause notices, personal hearings and reasoned orders within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned termination letters quashed; fresh show cause notices, personal hearings and reasoned orders directed within eight weeks; no order as to costs.

Satish Y. Acharya vs Union of India — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

9-wpl-32028-2023.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶3

ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE

¶4

Digitally signed by ASHVINI BAPPASAHEB KAKDE Date: 2024.07.11 18:36:13 +0530

¶5

WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 32028 OF 2023

¶6

Dr. Satish Y. Achrya and Ors. .. Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Through the General manager, Central Railway, Mumbai & Ors.

¶9

.. Respondents

¶10

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w. Prateek Pansare i/b. M. P. Rege & Co. Advocates for the Petitioners.

¶11

Mr. T. J. Pandian a/w. D. P. Singh for Respondent.

¶12

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ. DATE: JULY 11, 2024

¶13

P. C.

¶14

The above Writ Petition seeks a writ, order or direction to quash and set aside the impugned letters dated (1) 6^th November 2023 issued by Respondent No.3 to Respondent No.4 (Exhibit “O” hereto); (2) 7^th November 2023 issued by Respondent No.4 to Petitioner No.1 (Exhibit “Q” hereto); (3) 7^th November issued by Respondent No.4 to Petitioner No.2 (Exhibit “R” hereto); (4) 7^th November 2023 issued by Respondent No.4 to Petitioner No.3 (Exhibit “S” hereto); and (5) 7^th November 2023 issued by Respondent No.4

¶15

Ashvini Narwade

¶16

Page 1 of 3 JULY 11, 2024

¶17

9-wpl-32028-2023.doc

¶18

to Petitioner No.4 (Exhibit “T” hereto), as being illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio;

¶19

The only grievance before us in the present Petition is that all these letters have been issued without giving any hearing to the Petitioners and by virtue of which their licenses to run stalls on the railway platform of the Central Railway have been terminated.

¶20

It is not in dispute that no hearing or Show Cause Notice was given to the Petitioners before the decision was taken to terminate their licenses. We, therefore, are of the considered view that this would amount to breach of principles of natural justice. We, accordingly, quash the impugned letters particularly set out hereinabove.

¶21

We direct the Railway Authorities to issue separate Show Cause Notices to each of the Petitioners calling upon them to show cause why their licenses should not be terminated. Once such a Show Cause Notice is issued, the Railway Authorities shall also give a personal hearing to the Petitioners and thereafter pass a reasoned order either cancelling their licenses or relocating their stalls at a different location, if they are so entitled.

¶22

Page 2 of 3 JULY 11, 2024

¶23

Ashvini Narwade

¶24

9-wpl-32028-2023.doc

¶25

We must hasten to clarify that we have not opined on the merits of the matter and especially with reference to whether licenses are required to be terminated or otherwise. This shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law by the Railway Authorities. This entire exercise shall be carried out and completed within a period of eight weeks from today.

¶26

Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

¶27

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.

¶28

[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]

¶29

Page 3 of 3 JULY 11, 2024

¶30

Ashvini Narwade

Satish Y. Acharya v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Y. Acharya v. Union of India

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sarfaraz Nisar Khimani vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax CIR-32-1

Pallav Ramesh Jain vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CIR.-19-1

Vishal Nitin SAMPAT-2015-16 vs Income Tax Officer Ward 23-3-6

Everplus Properties and Developers LLP vs Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Central CIRCLE-7(2)

Nirali Parekh and 2 Ors. vs Kishore Vrajlal Soni

Rohan S/O Vimal Agrawal vs the Union of India Thr Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli and Anr.