Disposed

Haladhar Kalita v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Gauhati HC5 Nov 2024WP(C)/2432/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought reconsideration for a business space after petitioning authorities took possession. Court dismissed writ as petitioner chose not to pursue it amidst bidding, reserving liberty for a future administrative application without determining entitlement.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner at liberty to apply to respondent Nos. 2 & 4 for allotment of a suitable place; no entitlement determined by the court.

Haladhar Kalita Vs the Union of India and 4 Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2024)

Page No.# 1/3

GAHC010093592024

2024:GAU-AS:10855

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/2432/2024

¶6

HALADHAR KALITA

¶7

S/O LATE ANANTA RAM KALITA, R/O VILL- AITHABOI, CHANGSARI, P.O. AND P.S.-CHANGSARI, DIST- KAMRUP (R), ASSAM, PIN-781101

¶8

VERSUS

¶9

THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS. REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11

¶10

2:THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR REGIONAL OFFICE - 4-D MANDOVI APARTMENT AMBARI G.N.B. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001

¶11

3:THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD NEW DELHI INDIA REGIONAL OFFICE - 4-D MANDOVI APARTMENT AMBARI G.N.B. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001

¶12

4:THE REGIONAL MANAGER IRCTC REGIONAL OFFICE - 4-D MANDOVI APARTMENT

¶13

Page No.# 2/3

¶14

AMBARI G.N.B. ROAD GUWAHATI-781001

¶15

5:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (C) N.F. RAILWAY RANGIA DIVISION RANGIA DIST- KAMRUP (R) ASSA

¶16

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR T H HAZARIKA, D ROY,MR. K ISLAM,MR A RASHID,MR M CHETIA

¶17

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR H GUPTA,MS N K DEVI (r-2,3,4),MR N ANIX SINGH (r-2,3,4),MR G N SAHEWALLA (r-2,3,4),SC, IRCTC

¶18

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

06.11.2024

¶21

Heard Mr. T.H. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. P.K. Medhi, learned Central Government Counsel [CGC] for the respondent nos. 1 & 5; and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Anix Singh, learned Standing Counsel, Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation [IRCTC] for the respondent nos. 2 & 4.

¶22

Mr. Hazarika, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the possession of the Refreshment Room at Rangia Railway Station has already been taken over by the respondent authorities from the petitioner and the petitioner is not running any business from the said Refreshment Room. Mr. Hazarika has submitted that a competitive bidding process has already been initiated by e-Tender –cum- Auction Notice dated 03.06.2024. He has further submitted that since the Refreshment Room is to be allotted to the successful bidder in the competitive bidding process, the petitioner would not pursue this writ petition. He has also submitted that as the petitioner would be without any space to run his business for livelihood, the petitioner may be allowed to prefer a representation before the respondent

¶23

Page No.# 3/3

¶24

authorities to consider his case for any available and suitable place as per the extant policy of the respondent authorities.

¶25

Mr. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 2 & 4 has submitted that the competitive bidding process initiated by the e-Tender –cum- Auction Notice dated 03.06.2024 is at the final stage. Since the petitioner is not pursuing this writ petition, Mr. Sahewalla has fairly submitted that the petitioner would be at liberty to prefer an application before the respondent authorities and if such application is filed, the respondent authorities would consider such application as per the extant policy.

¶26

As the petitioner is not pursuing the instant writ petition, the writ petition is closed.

¶27

In so far as the prayer of the petitioner that he would submit an application for allotment of an available and suitable place is concerned, liberty stands reserved to the petitioner to submit such application and in the event such an application is filed, the respondent authorities, more particularly, the respondent nos. 2 & 4 shall consider such application on its own merits and as per the extant policy relating to allotment of place. It is, however, made clear that this Court has not made any observation as regards entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for allotment of any place.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Haladhar Kalita v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Haladhar Kalita v. the Union of India and 4 Ors.

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

Rupak Chandra Lahkar Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Pona Pathak @ Punaram Pathak and 2 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Madhabi Kalita Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Ochaman Ali Vs the Union of India and 7 Ors.

Chaiful Islam and 6 Ors. Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.

Lakhimpur District Section Divisional N F Railway Freight Truck Union Harmoti Junction Vs the Union of India and 10 Ors.