Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, v. The Union of India

Patna HC21 Apr 2025CWJC/2171/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Railway licence holder PCO booth Begusarai station platform conversion of business policy decision disabled licensee preference future tender LPA Patna High Court 21-04-2025 Union of India East Central Railway Dilip Kumar Mahato Kaushar Neyazi

What did the court decide?

L.P.A. No.1695 of 2019 disposed of with modification of Single Judge's order dated 25.11.2019 directing preference/priority to respondent in future tenders; C.W.J.C. No. 2171 of 2020 disposed of directing Railway Authorities to examine and redress grievance of petitioner on par with Dilip Kumar Mahato for future tenders. ¶33-34, 39

Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, Vs The Union of India — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶33-34, 39

Issue for consideration

Whether the Railway authorities can be compelled to permit a PCO booth licensee to switch over to another business at Begusarai Railway Station platform, given that such change-of-business policy does not exist with the Railways. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

The change of business from PCO booth to any other business is purely a policy decision of the Railway; since no such change-of-business policy exists, the appellant is not entitled to convert the PCO booth purpose to any other purpose.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Railway Authorities shall give preference/priority to the respondent as and when notice inviting application from eligible candidates for any other business is called for, and if no relaxation provision exists, it shall be examined by the Railway Authorities.

¶30

Key takeaways

The order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2019 in C.W.J.C. No. 16079 of 2019 is modified in the above terms.ratio¶32
The observations made in L.P.A. No. 1695 of 2019 decided today in The Union of India Versus Dilip Kumar Mahato stand applicable to C.W.J.C. No. 2171 of 2020, and the concerned Railway Authorities are directed to examine and redress the grievance of petitioner Kaushar Neyazi on par with Dilip Kumar Mahato for future tenders.ratio¶37-38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (P.B. Bajanthri and S.B. Pd. Singh, JJ.), oral judgment dated 21-04-2025 — In Letters Patent Appeal No.1695 of 2019 (Union of India v. Dilip Kumar Mahato), appellants assailed Single Judge's order dated 25.11.2019 in C.W.J.C. No.16079 of 2019. Respondent, a 60% disabled person running a public telephone (PCO) booth on 5X6 space at Begusarai Railway Station platform for about 24 years, sought conversion of the booth to another business owing to technological obsolescence of PCOs. Court held that change of business is purely a policy decision of the Railways; since no such policy exists, the appellant-Railway is not entitled to convert the PCO booth purpose to any other purpose. However, considering respondent's disability and long-standing business, the Railway Authorities were to give preference/priority to him whenever notice inviting applications from eligible candidates for other business is issued; if no relaxation provision exists, the same was to be examined by the Railway Authorities. On this basis, the Single Judge's order stood modified and the L.P.A. was disposed of. Connected writ petition C.W.J.C. No.2171 of 2020 by Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, on similar facts, was likewise disposed of with directions to the concerned Railway Authorities to examine and redress his grievance on par with Dilip Kumar Mahato for future tenders. Pending I.As., if any, stood disposed of.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1695 of 2019 In

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16079 of 2019

¶3

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

¶4

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶5

The Divisional Rail Manager, Sonpur Division, East Central Railway, Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶6

The Station Manager, Begusarai Station, District- Begusarai.

¶7

... ... Appellants

¶8

Versus

¶9

Dilip Kumar Mahato, Son of Rampreet Mahato, resident of Ward no. 7, Village- Baro, Rajdeopur, Police Station- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

¶10

... ... Respondent

¶11

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

¶12

with

¶13

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2171 of 2020

¶14

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

¶15

Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, Son of Md. Sultan, Resident of Village- Phulwaria, Ward No. 4, P.O.- Barauni, P.S.- Barauni, District- Begusarai.

¶16

... ... Petitioner

¶17

Versus

¶18

The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway, hajipur, District- Vaishali.

¶19

The Divisional Rail Manager, Sonpur Division, East Central Railway, Sonpur, District- Saran.

¶20

The Station Manager, Barauni Junction, District- Begusarai.

¶21

... ... Respondents

¶22

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

¶23

Appearance :

¶24

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1695 of 2019) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Agrawal, Sr. CGSC, UOI For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2171 of 2020) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Mr. Alok Anand, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate (UOI) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. B. PD. SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)

¶25

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1695 of 2019 dt.21-04-2025

¶26

2/3

¶27

Date : 21-04-2025

¶28

Ref: L.P.A. No. 1695 of 2019

¶29

The appellants have assailed the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16079 of 2019.

¶30

2. Respondent - Dilip Kumar Mahato, who was allotted space on the platform of Begusarai Railway Station measuring of 5X6 to Public telephone booth. Having regard to the technology, PCO Booth is not feasible to run in the Railway Platform, resultantly, he intends to switch over to any other business. Such change of business policy is not existing with the Appellant – Railway, therefore, Appellant is not entitled to convert the aforementioned PCO Booth purpose to that of any other purpose. Purely it is policy decision of the AppellantRailways. No doubt, Respondent is 60% disabled person and he had a continuous business for about 24 years. The Railway Authorities, at the best, they can give preference to the Respondent as and when notice inviting application from the eligible candidates for any other business is called for and preference/priority shall be given. If such relaxation provision is not there, the same shall be examined by the Railway Authorities - Appellant. To this extent, the Appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 25.11.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 16079 of 2019.

¶31

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1695 of 2019 dt.21-04-2025 3/3

¶32

Accordingly, it is modified in the above term.

¶33

3. Accordingly, the present L.P.A. No.1695 of 2019

¶34

stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶35

Ref: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2171 of 2020

¶36

4. Heard C.W.J.C. No. 2171 of 2020.

¶37

5. Petitioner -Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi case is similar to the L.P.A. No. 1695 of 2019 decided today in the case of The Union of India Versus Dilip Kumar Mahato. Whatever the observation made in the aforementioned decision stands applicable to the present case.

¶38

6. The concerned Railway Authorities are hereby directed to examine and redress the grievance of the petitioner on par with Dilip Kumar Mahato for the future tenders.

¶39

7. Accordingly, C.W.J.C. No. 2171 of 2020 stands disposed of. Pending I.As, if any, stands disposed of.

¶40

(P. B. Bajanthri, J)

¶41

( S. B. Pd. Singh, J)

¶42

manish/-

¶43

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE	NA
Uploading Date	24.04.2025
Transmission Date	NA

Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaushar Neyazi @ Md. Kaushar Neyazi, v. The Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Riya Kumari Vs Anish Kumar Rai

Kameshwar Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Arjun Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar

Amlesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Nitesh Kumar @ Nitesh Kumar Gautam Vs The State of Bihar

Amarnath Gupta Vs The State of Bihar