Disposed

M/s J. P. Singh and Brothers v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC16 Apr 2018CWJC/3041/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed an interlocutory application to amend the writ petition prayer regarding railway catering fees. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing the Chief Commercial Manager to consider and dispose of the petitioner's pending representation with an opportunity of hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Allowed amendment application; disposed of writ petition by directing Respondent No. 2 to consider Petitioner's representation with hearing opportunity within eight weeks.

M/s J. P. Singh and Brothers Vs The Union Of… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3041 of 2018

¶3

=========================================================== M/s J. P. Singh & Brothers, Vending Contractor, Patliputra Railway Station, through its Proprietor Sri Dhruva Narayan Singh, S/o Late Yogendra Prasad Singh, R/o Basant Bihar Colony, Boring Road, P.S.- S.K. Puri, District- Patna.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Danapur.

¶7

The Chief Commercial Manager/Catering, E.C. Railway, Hajipur.

¶8

The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur.

¶9

The Assistant Commercial Manager (Catering), Danapur.

¶10

The Station Manager, Patliputra Railway Station, Patna, Bihar.

¶11

.... .... Respondents

¶12

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Prakash Chandra Agrawal

¶13

Mr. Mohit Agrawal, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Kumar Manish, Advocate

¶14

===========================================================

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-04-2018

¶16

I.A. No. 3002 of 2018

¶17

The interlocutory application has been filed with the prayer

¶18

for amendment of the relevant portion of the prayer in the writ

¶19

petition by adding the following prayer –

¶20

“(a) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 26.02.2018 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur after filling of the present writ petition;

¶21

(b) For a direction to the respondents to consider the representation dated 20.02.2018 filed by the petitioner; (c) For a direction to the respondents not to disturb the petitioner’s other catering stalls at Buxer Railway Station which is not the subject matter of the present writ application and there is no dues against the stalls as

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.3041 of 2018 dt.16-04-2018

¶23

2/4

¶24

petitioner is regularly paying the fees pertaining to stall at Buxer.”

¶25

Having regard to the nature of the prayer, the interlocutory application is allowed and the same shall be treated as forming part of the writ petition.

¶26

CWJC No. 3041 of 2018

¶27

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as

¶28

learned counsel for the respondents.

¶29

The main writ petition has been filed for the following

¶30

reliefs –

¶31

“(a) For setting aside the letter of demand raised by Sr. D.C.M., Danapur through its letter dated 02.02.2018 to the petitioner for catering stall allotted at Patliputra Railway Station;

¶32

(b) For directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh demand after considering the request made by the petitioner;

¶33

(c) For issuance of a direction to the respondent authorities to consider the various representation made by the petitioner from time to time and reduce the amount of license fee after considering the operation of trains as many trains has been shifted to another stations after floating of tender;

¶34

(d) For issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to grant him extension of the period of agreement and not to disturb the operation of stalls run by the petitioner as petitioner is ready to paid (sic) the revised license fees.

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.3041 of 2018 dt.16-04-2018

¶36

3/4

¶37

(e) For issuance of such other writ(s), order(s), direction (s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper.”

¶38

5 . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that even though the petitioner filed a representation dated 20.02.2018 [(Annexure-1(I) to the interlocutory application], the same has not been considered prior to issuing the letter dated 26.02.2018 by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur requiring the petitioner to deposit the due amount of licence fee of both the stalls of Patliputra Station with Booking Supervisor amounting to Rs. 7,47,840/- for the extended period. Learned counsel however submits that it will suffice if the petitioner’s representation dated 20.02.2018 [Annexure-1(I)] filed before the Chief Commercial Manager/Catering, E.C. Railway, Hajipur (Respondent No. 2) is directed to be disposed of, in which event, the present writ petition need not be pressed on merits.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondents appears and has been heard.

¶40

Having regard to the nature of the grievances and the stand of the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Chief Commercial Manager/Catering, E.C. Railway, Hajipur (Respondent No. 2) to consider and dispose of the petitioner’s representation dated 20.02.2018 [Annexure-1(I)], if the same is still pending before him, after grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in accordance with law, expeditiously, and preferably within

¶41

Patna High Court CWJC No.3041 of 2018 dt.16-04-2018

¶42

4/4

¶43

a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy

¶44

of this judgment.

¶45

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

¶46

B.T/Chandran

¶47

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶48

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	N.A.
Uploading Date	21.04.2018
Transmission Date	N.A.

M/s J. P. Singh and Brothers v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s J. P. Singh and Brothers v. The Union Of India and 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

M/s. Tara Rajat Enclave Pvt. Ltd. Madhopur Vs The Bihar State Educational Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Manish Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Diwakar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Soni Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Niranjan Sah @ Niranjan Kesri Vs The South Bihar Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.

Hira Lal Sona Vs The South Bihar Power Holding Company Ltd. and Ors.