Disposed

K. Padmaja v. South Central Railway

Telangana HC18 Dec 2024WP/13263/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of two writ petitions challenging termination notices for a license to run dormitories. The Court held that while the Railway Department must provide alternative accommodation and extend the license after redevelopment completion, immediate relocation is impractical. The orders were accepted as an undertaking by the Railway.

What did the court decide?

Respondents to provide alternative site after redevelopment completion, extend license period, and refund security deposit and pro-rata license fee.

K. Padmaja Vs South Central Railway — Property and Title | Telangana HC (2024)

I I &

[^340s ]

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER . TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO: 13263 0F 2023 & 31091 0F 2024

¶9

W.P.No.13263 OF 2023

¶10

Between:

¶11

K. Padmaja, Wife of Jaya Reddy, Aged about 60 years, Licence Holder of Rg!9y?,.1,^{Operarron tviaintenan6e,io-rirnsrlr-(RON,iT)'ol} n"firinq^"R"o";rrr - - uormrrory rn secunderabad Railway station, Resident of Hydeiabad 50005"6

¶12

AND

¶13

...PET|T|ONER

¶14

south centrar Rairway, Represented by its Generar Manager, Rair Bhavan, Secunderabad.

¶15

Divisional Railway [,4anager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad.

¶16

Senior Divisionar commerciar Manager, south centrar Rairway, Secunderabad

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

Petition under Articre 226 of rhe constitution of rndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of tt/andamus, declaring the action of the 3rd respondenf vide his.Notice dated 2910412023 terminating the license of the petitioner in respect of her license for running dormitory and retiring rooms in secunderabad Railway station is highly unwarranted, unjust, atbitrary, suffers from non-apprication of mind, contrary to the terms and conditions of the license of the petitioner, violative of principles of natural justice illegal and unsustainable, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia.

¶19

¶20

lA NO: 1 OF 2023

¶21

Petition unlr-'r section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit frled in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to suspend the op:ration of the notice dated 291O4t2023 issued by the 3rd respondent termilating the license for running dormitory and retiring rooms in Secunderabad Rerilway Station.

¶22

W.P.No.31091 OF 2024

¶23

Between:

¶24

K.Padmaja, wife of Jaya Reddy. Aged about 61 years. Licence Horder of Kenovatton, Oo()r;rtion. lVlarntenance and Transfer (ROIVT) of Retiring RoomsiDormitory in Secunderabad Railway Station, Resident'of Hyct6raoau sdoiiso

¶25

...PETITIONER

¶26

AND

¶27

1 South Centra liailway, Represented by its General l,4anager, Rail Bhavan, Secunderab a I

¶28

2 Senior Divisional Commercial lrrlanager, South Central Railwa y, Secunderaba,l.

¶29

...RESPONDENTS

¶30

Petition uncler Article 226 of rhe constrtution of lndia praying that in the circumstances state,l in the affidavit filed therewith, the High court may be pleased to issue a writ or r:rd -.r or direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus, decla ringy the action of the 2nd respondent vide his order dated 21 .10.2024 termrnatirrg the licence of the petitioner rn respect ol Dormitory and Retiring Rooms i, Secunderabad Railway station is highry unwarranted, high arbitrary, violatrve of the order of this Honourable court dated i 1.05.2023 in w.P.No.13263 of 20'.23, contrary to the crause No.i2 (b) of section Ir of the Licence Deed of the, :etitioner, violative of principles of natural justice, vilative of Articles 14 and 21 rrf the constitution of lndia, ilegar and unsustainable.

¶31

¶32

lA NO: 1 OF 2024

¶33

Petition under section^{151 CPC prayingthat ln the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High Court may be pleasedto} suspend the operation of the^{order of the} 2nd^{respondent dated 21 .10.2024 relating} to termination of licence^{of the petitioner in respect of Dormitoryand Retiring} Rooms in secunderabad^{Railway Station, pending disposal of the above writ} Petition.

¶34

Counsel for the Petitioner^{in both W.Ps : SRI C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU} Counsel for the Respondents^{in both W.Ps : SRIGADI PRAVEEN KUMAR'} DY.SOL.GENERAL

¶35

The Court made the following:^{COMMON ORDER}

: I

it tl i

1 I ,i I! I

THE HON'BLE JUSTICE MOUSHUMI BHAT'TACHARYA

¶41

WRIT PETITION Nos.13 263 of2023 and 31O91 of2O24

¶42

Mr. C.llamach,rndra Raju, learned counsel ibr rhe petitioner.

¶43

Mr. Gadi Pravccl l.umar, Iearned Deputy Solicitor General o[ lndia lor the resoonrlents

¶44

COMMON ORDER

¶45

The prr:sent writ petitions challenge the Notices dated 29.04 .2023 and 2 1 . 7O.2O24 issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Ir{anager, South Central Railway, Securrderabad (responden; lt{o.3 in W.P.No. 13263 of 2023 and respon<1ent Nc.2 in W.P.No.31091 ,tf 2024) terminating the petitioner,s license for running Donritory/ Retiring Rooms in the Secunderabad Railway Station.

¶46

The pt:titioner was awarded a license by the Railway Department fb:: "Renovation, Operation, Maintenance and Transfer ol Retiring Roor:rs and Dormitories,, in the Secunderabad Raihvay Stalion on 06..lll..2O2l for a period of 9 years i.e., from 16.11.2O2O to 15.11.202!).

¶47

Initially, t.he Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railv,ay, issued the Notice dated 29 .O4 .2023, tvhicn 1S

¶48

impugned in W.P.No. 13263 of 2023, terminating the petitioner,s license w.e.f. i5.O5.2023. A Co-orrlinate Bendn uide order dated 71.05.2023 suspended the impugned Notice. pursuant to the said order, the petitioner continues to run a part of the Dormitory in the old block. The petitioner thereafter submitted a representation on O4.t1.2O24 to the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, to provide alternative accommodation to the petitioner in the newly-constructed building at Gate No.1 of the Secunderabad Railway Station.

¶49

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready and rx,illing to vacate the present premises subject to the Senior Divisional Commercial Malager, South Central Railway, providing alternative accommodation rn the new building. Counsel submits thar the respondents issued the impugned Notice dated 27.10.2024 terrrinating the petitioner's contract and directing the petitioner to vacatc and handover the premises by 1 1. 1 1.2024.

¶50

Counsel complains against the impugned Notices of termination of contract on the ground of the i'espondents not

----------7

issuing ar-r1r S|rrtu, Cause Notice before the termination, contraly to Clause 12 ol Section II (b) of the Tender Document of the Indian Railway Stirtic ns Development Corporation Limited (IRSDC). Counsel submil.s that the petitioner is entitted to an alternative site for continuingl the work of Renovation in the Dormitory in the Secunderabe d llailway Station in terms of the Agreement.

¶55

The Ie arned Deputy Solicitor General appearing for the respondentsi^/ Slc uth Central Railway submits that thc petitioner was askecl to vacate the premises on account of a major upgradationT development work at the Secunderabad Railway Station whic e i,s berng undertaken at a cost of Rs.700 Crores for improving ll€rssenger convenience. The Deputy Solicitor Genera.l submits that th,: work is moving at a brisk pace and the prroject is due to be inaugrrated in November, 2025. It is submiLted that the developmen t u'crk will resurt in creating world-crass raci tities for enhancing pzrssenger comfort through segregation of arrival and departurc trerf.hr: and multi-modal connectivity. Counsel further submits that the redevelopment activities of the Railway Station building require thc North side of the building to be dismantled in a phased mzmner. Hence, existing commercial contracts in the

¶56

¶57

¶58

front side of the main building (North) are required to be dismantled or relocated based on feasibility. Counsel submits that the dismantling activity is required to be carried out with immediate effect since 4 floors of the new building are to^be constructed arld commissioned next year. It is submitted that the petitioner cannot be relocated before completion of the development work in I he North bu ilding.

¶59

The dispute in the prescnt writ petitions centers around thc Notices dated. 29.04.2023 and 27.10.2024 whereby the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central^Railway, terminated the Contract of the petitioner in rerms of^{the Tender} Document relating to "Shifting of Site" ald transfer of^premises.

¶60

The License Agreement dated 06.12.2O21^{executed betweel-r} the parties for "Renovation,^{Operation, Maintenance and Transfer} of Retiring Rooms/^Dormitories at^{Secunderabad RailwayStation'} stipulates that the Agreement^{would be in place for 9 yearsfrom} O7.OA.2O2O till 3L.O7.2O29.^{However, itis undisputed thatthe} respondents were^{forced to terminate the Agreementby the} impugned Notices^{on accountof the development/redevelopment}

\rork at the Siecunderabad Railway Station. The plan to develop the Railway Station was subsequent to the Agreement dated 06.12.2021 anrl is avowedly for improved passenger comfort and convenience 'i'he petitioner's demand of being relocated or being provided alterrrrrtive site for continuing the renovation work has to be seen in the context of the redevelopment work at the Secunderaba d lRailq,ay Station. Needless to say, the redevt:lopment u'ork woulcl r:ntajl dismantling of several of the existing structures including th: I,lorth building of the Railways which is also the specihc case o: lhe respondents as stated in the counter.

¶65

It is u ndisputed that the redevelopment work involves a timeline for r:ompletion ald is due to be commissioned in November, :r,(t25. Considering these facts, the pel.itioner,s insistence on l>r:ing offered an a-lternative site may not be feaslble rn the presen.: circumstances since the petitioner cal only be relocated alter completion of the finishing works in the relevalt part of the bu..ltling. Permitting the existing Dormitory where the petitioner I s p resently engaged to remain would det.ail the execution and commissioning of the ongoing work within the approved timr:ljnes.

I t

--.>

The petitioner admits in paragraph 14 of the affrdavit hled in support of W.P-No.31097 of 2024 that there is presently only one Dormitory in the Secunderabad . Raih^,ay Station which the petitioner is operating but that the Railway Department is bound to provide at least one Dormitory in the new building after demolition of the present premises. The stand of the petitioner is unreasonable. Purely on practicai tcrms, the petitioncr cannot bc offered an alternative site unless the development work in the Railway Station is completed as per schedule. The petitioner's obstinacy to hold on to the existing Dormitory till the respondents provide an alternative site would be disruptive oI the ongoing development work at the Secunderabad Railway Station.

¶70

1 1. Moreover, Clause 12 of Section-ll of the Tender Document relating to "Shifting of Site" specifically provides that in "exceptional circumstances" of construction in station building due to redevelopment activity or shifting of the station building when the site of Retiring Rooms and Dormitories are required to be vacated, the Licensee shall have to vacate the site to enable the redevelopment/construction activity of the station. In such cases, however, the Authority^shall offer alternate site to the Licensee for

¶71

, .r.. _.

¶72

¶73

the balanr;e preriod of the license which the Licensee may accept or reject. If the Li:ensee agrees to take over the ncw alternate site, the new alterlta.te site shall be handed over to the Licensr:e on the cxisting lir:enst: fee. if the site is not handed over to the Licensee, the Authority r;hall refund Security Deposit ald pro_rata available license fec frrr the balance period.

¶74

Thcrelb.-e , it is clear that the Tender Document provides for exceptional circumstances sucl,r as redevelopment/ cons truction rvork at thc.?lriiway Station. The mandate to provide an alternative site cannc,t lt<: an absolute mardate or one that holds the respondent.s to ransom particularly where the redevelopment work at the Rail."r,a) station is for the overall benefit of the passengers. This is a cas: u here the overwhelming public interest must prevail over the individual rights of the petitioner. The petitioner cannot be permitterd 1o hold up the development work on the ground of breach of prinr:i;tles of natural justrce.

¶75

In any e vt:nt, the learned Deputy Solicitor General has hled an additional afhdavit on 03.12_2024 pursuant to the clir<:ction of the court. Pa:zrgraph s of the additional affidavit states that the

¶76

¶77

¶78

proposed Dormitories may only be relocated after completion of the full length North building. Paragraph 6 of the additional afltdavit states that tlle contract will be handed over to the petitioner for the remaining period of the license after completion of the construction/redevelopment worl< at the Secunderabad Raiiway Station. Paragraph 6 of the additional afhdavit further states^that the petitioner will tre accommodated for the remaining^{period of thc} license subject to her eligibility ald on payment of outstandir-rg dues to the Railways.

¶79

'lhe additiona-1 affidavit carr be accepted^as al^undertaking given by the respondent/Railways that the^{pelitionerwili be given} alternative accommodation to continue^{with the Agreementfor the} remaining period of license.

¶80

The Writ Court can^{certainly step inwhere there isan} infraction of the fundamental^{rightsof zr-nyperson or citizen.The} Writ Court however^{cannot give directions where the directionswili} be unviable, impractical^{and un-implementable. The Courtmust} also look at the^{overallpublic interestin appropriatecases or in} other words^{the utiiityangle of one} us.^{marlA- Demanding that the}

¶81

¶82

¶83

petitioner be provided an alternative site with immediate effect will not only be Impractical but would also lead to delny in the execution,/co:rpetition of the redevelopment work at the Secunderabarl Railway Station. ln Tata Motors Ltd u. Brihan Mumbai El<tctric Supplg & Transport und.eftaking (BEST) I , the Supreme Court advised that the hnancial burden on the public exchequer ri,,trld be a relevant consideration where the Court directs issuarl(le of a fresh tender and that the Court would exercise its c iscretionary powers under Arlicle 226 of the Constitution orLl1, in furtherance of public interest and not merely on lhe asking.

¶84

Theref,rr.e, considering the facts submitted on behalf of the parties ancl the material showed to the Court, this Court is of the view that t)re ltertitioner,s rights under the License Agreement must be protectecl after completion / commissioning of the rr:novated Secunderabad Railway Station. The respondent Railways shall provide alternal.ive site to the petitioner after completiot_r of the der.elopment worl< as per the additional afhdavit/undertaking given by the Railwarrs. The respondents shall also consider extending

¶85

12023 SCC OnLine l;C 671

I I

the license period for the period during which the license was paused/kept in abeyance pursuitnt to the impugned notices. The respondents shall also refund Lhe Security Dcposit and the pro_ rata available license fee for the balalce period in terms of Clause 12 of Section-Il of the Tender Document ("Shifting of Site,). .fhe respondents shall also take a favourable vii,w of the petitioner,s cligibility lor being offered alterrrative site aft.r.completion of thc renovated Railway Station irr view of the petitioner being an exrsting licensee at the time of issuance of the impugned notices.

¶90

W.P.Nos. 13263 of 2023 and 31O91 of 2024 arc accordingly disposed of in terms of the above. The petitioners shall be at liberty of approaching the Court in the event Lhc responcents resilc from their obligations under clause 12 of scr:tion-ri of l,tre Tender Documenl

¶91