Disposed

P.K.K. Ameena v. General Manager / Person in charge

Telangana HC6 Feb 2012WP/2056/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that the writ petitioner, who held an expired lease for a railway Refreshment Room, was not legally entitled to continue operations. However, acknowledging her long-standing service, the court permitted her to run the facility for one month from the date of the order.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue running the Refreshment Room for one month from 06.02.2012, conditional on it not being closed down.

P.K.K. Ameena Vs General Manager / Person in charge — Service and Employment | Telangana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.2056 of 2012

¶6

Between: P.K.K.Ameena

¶7

..... PETITIONER

¶8

AND The General Manager/Person in charge South Central Railway, Secunderabad and another

¶9

.....RESPONDENTS

¶10

The Court made the following:

¶11

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA

¶12

WRIT PETITION No.2056 of 2012

¶13

O R D E R:

¶14

The petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents in trying to dispossess her from the shop which is Non-Vegetarian Refreshment Room at Platform Nos.1 & 2 of Renigunta Railway Station, Chittoor District.

¶15

The petitioner entered into an agreement for catering for Refreshment Room and was granted licence initially for a period of five years as per agreement dated 01.12.1988. Since then the petitioner has

¶16

been running the said Refreshment Room by getting extension of lease period. When the lease period was to expire by 21.07.2011, the petitioner again requested the respondents to permit her to run the Refreshment Room on Platform Nos.1 & 2 at Renigunta Railway Station, Chittoor District. The petitioner was granted extension of lease period for three months and the extension period has expired on 20.01.2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner be permitted to run the Refreshment Room for another period of two months.

¶17

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the period of extension of lease granted to the petitioner for running the Refreshment Room has already expired on 20.01.2012 and hence she is not entitled to continue to run the same. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits that at present a Cell Kitchen is being operated from Platform Nos.3 and 4. The learned counsel further submits that at present the petitioner has not been operating the Refreshment Room, as the same has been closed down after expiry of extension of term of lease period by 20.01.2012.

¶18

Per contra, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is still running the Refreshment Room at Platform Nos.1 & 2 of Renigunta Railway Station, Chittoor District.

¶19

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to continue to run the Refreshment Room at Platform Nos.1 & 2 of Renigunta Railway Station, Chittoor District, as the lease period had expired way back on 21.07.2011 and even the extended period has also expired on 20.01.2012.

¶20

In view of the above, I find no merit in this writ petition. However, keeping in view of the fact that the petitioner has been running the Refreshment Room at Platform Nos.1 & 2 of Renigunta Railway Station,

¶21

Chittoor District since long time, therefore, the petitioner is permitted to continue with the running of the said Refreshment Room, in case the same has not been closed down, for a period of one month from today i.e. upto 06.03.2012. However, in case the said Refreshment Room has been closed down, then the petitioner shall not be permitted to operate the same.

¶22

The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs.

¶23

______________________ ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA,J

¶24

Dated: 06.02.2012 Dsr Note: Furnish operative portion of order by wire at party’s costs B/o Dsr

P.K.K. Ameena v. General Manager / Person in charge

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.K.K. Ameena v. General Manager / Person in charge

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

Pasumarthi Bhaskara Sharma Vs The National Highways Authorities of India, rep. by its

M/s. Sneha Constructions, Rep. by its Managing Partner Vs The Government of A.P.

P. Immam Khan, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

E.Venkat Swamy and Co. Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its

Farmers Export Society ( Registered Under the Provisions Vs The Union of India

K. Jagannatha Reddy Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by its