Disposed

Kuldip Raj v. Union of India Th Secy Ministry of Railways and Ors.

J&K HC7 Oct 2021WP(C)/936/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a petition seeking mandamus to prevent eviction from a railway shop site. The court directed the respondents to follow the Supreme Court judgment, refusing to let them waive the deposit of arrears while instructing them to verify calculations and follow due process.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of with directions for the respondents to honor the Supreme Court judgment regarding payment of arrears and due process.

Kuldip Raj Vs Union of India Th Secy Ministry of… — Writ and Judicial Review | J&K HC (2021)

¶1

Sr. No. 3

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU

¶3

CM No. 7047/2021 in WP(C) 936/2020

¶4

Kuldip Raj

¶5

…..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

¶6

Through: Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate

¶7

¶8

Union of India and Ors.

¶9

.…. Respondent(s)

¶10

Through: Mr. P. S. Chandel, CGSC

¶11

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, JUDGE

ORDER 07.10.2021

(OPEN COURT)

WP(C) 936/2020

The petitioner seeks a mandamus for commanding the respondents not to forcefully evict the petitioner from his shop site at Railway Station Jammu with a further direction to execute a fresh agreement in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court.

¶16

The Apex Court vide judgement and order dated 06.12.1993 had directed the petitioner to deposit an amount of Rs. 250/- per month with effect from 01.10.1981 and the arrears with effect from 01.10.1981 to 30.09.1993 to be paid in six half yearly installments, commencing from 01.03.1994. From 01.10.1993 onwards, the petitioner was directed to continue to pay monthly licence fee @ Rs. 750/-. This rate of Rs. 750/- was to be valid for a period of three years, thereafter after the expiry of a period of three years, the fee was to

¶17

WP(C) 936/2020

¶18

¶19

be fixed with mutual consent, failing which arbitral proceedings were to be conducted, in which the Arbitrator was to be nominated by the railway authorities.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he is prepared to deposit the amount in terms of the Apex Court judgment, which was not being received by the official respondents.

¶21

Be that as it may, the amount which is sought to be deposited on account of the arrears cannot be refused by the official respondents. In case there is any deficiency in calculation, the same will be worked out. The judgement and order, as pronounced by the Apex Court shall be followed in its letter and spirit and any action taken should be in consonance with the same. Due process of law shall be adopted in initiating any action against the petitioner.

¶22

With the aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of along with connected applications.

¶23

(Dhiraj Singh Thakur) Judge

¶24

Jammu 07.10.2021

¶25

Muneesh

¶26

MUNEESH SHARMA 2021.10.08 13:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kuldip Raj v. Union of India Th Secy Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldip Raj v. Union of India Th Secy Ministry of Railways and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Vs State Th.Pwd.and Anr.

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs Roshin Din and Ors.

Lalita Devi and Anr. Vs Om Parkash and Anr.

Mahant Rameshwar Dass Vs Hare Ram Dass

Dr. Akhtar Un Nisa Salaria Vs Abraham Quadri

Madan Lal Vs Romesh Kumar and Anr.