Full Judgment Text
13
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8206/2007
rd
% Date of decision : 23 Novemebr, 2009.
DURGA TRAVELS & TOURS & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. K.L. Nalwani, Advocate.
Versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.R. Narayan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
1. The petitioner No.1, M/s. Durga Travels and Tours, a partnership firm,
th
has challenged by way of present writ petition, the order dated 30 October,
2007, cancelling their Railway Travellers Service Agents license.
2. The respondents in the counter affidavit have pointed out that the
Vigilance staff of the Railway Board during the course of preventive check on
th
19 March, 1997, had apprehended Mr. Raj Kumar, authorized agent of the
petitioner with 33 tickets. Rail Travellers Agents Rules, 1985 had been
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 1
violated and the petitioner’s license was suspended for 30 days vide order
th
dated 7 October, 1998 and charges were also framed against Mr. Raj Kumar
th
by the special Railway Magistrate vide order dated 12 August, 1997. The
learned special Railway Magistrate had observed that it was unfortunate that
an authorized license holder was involved in malpractices causing
inconvenience to the general public and was acting contrary to the terms of
the license.
3. Subsequently, another employee of the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar
th
was apprehended on 6 April, 2002 and fine of Rs.800/- was imposed.
th
4. On 28 May, 2005, Mr. Raj Kumar, an employee of the petitioner was
found to be carrying a bundle of requisition slips and railway tickets for
cancellation. It was noticed that addresses mentioned in the requisition forms
did not tally with the addresses given in the booking register and 9 tickets did
not have entry in the booking register maintained by the petitioner.
Accordingly, a show cause notice dated___.08.05 was issued to the
petitioner. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to submit
their reply why action should not be taken against them under Rule 6 of the
Rail Travellers Agents Rules, 1985. In the statement of misconduct/non-
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 2
compliance, it was mentioned that during the course of preventive check by
the Vigilance staff of the Railway Board in the reservation office at Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi, irregularities were found on the part of the petitioner, which
clearly attracted and violated the Rules and Agreement. It is no doubt correct
that the statement of misconduct/irregularities could have been better
worded and more detailed. In fact specific allegations should have been made
against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not prejudiced because of
lack of details and particulars in the show cause notice. The petitioner was
fully aware of the facts and what had happened pursuant to the surprise check
conducted by Vigilance staff of the Railway Board. In reply to the show cause
th
notice dated 15 September, 2005, the petitioner gave their explanation
stating inter alia, that keeping in view the urgency, clients, had given booking
on telephone and the petitioner had send their employee directly for
reservation even without requisition slip being filled up by the client and
details were incorrectly recorded in the requisition slip. They have also
admitted that required entries in the register were not made. The petitioner
apologized for their irregularities and had stated that in future they shall take
all precautions so that such incidents were not repeated.
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 3
th
5. The reply was considered and by the belated order dated 30 October,
2007, the license was directed to be cancelled and the petitioner was black
listed. This order should have been passed earlier, but mere delay in passing
of the order, cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned order in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner had virtually admitted
th
their fault in the reply to the show cause notice dated 15 September, 2005.
th
The impugned order dated 30 October, 2007, specifically records that the
requisition forms found in possession of Mr. Raj Kumar, had addresses which
did not tally with the addresses in the booking register and nine tickets had no
entry in the register. There was clear violation of terms and conditions of the
license. This was the third occasion when the petitioner was found to be at
fault and violating the Rules. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
NA/ P
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 4
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 8206/2007
rd
% Date of decision : 23 Novemebr, 2009.
DURGA TRAVELS & TOURS & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. K.L. Nalwani, Advocate.
Versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondent
Through Mr. S.R. Narayan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
O R D E R
1. The petitioner No.1, M/s. Durga Travels and Tours, a partnership firm,
th
has challenged by way of present writ petition, the order dated 30 October,
2007, cancelling their Railway Travellers Service Agents license.
2. The respondents in the counter affidavit have pointed out that the
Vigilance staff of the Railway Board during the course of preventive check on
th
19 March, 1997, had apprehended Mr. Raj Kumar, authorized agent of the
petitioner with 33 tickets. Rail Travellers Agents Rules, 1985 had been
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 1
violated and the petitioner’s license was suspended for 30 days vide order
th
dated 7 October, 1998 and charges were also framed against Mr. Raj Kumar
th
by the special Railway Magistrate vide order dated 12 August, 1997. The
learned special Railway Magistrate had observed that it was unfortunate that
an authorized license holder was involved in malpractices causing
inconvenience to the general public and was acting contrary to the terms of
the license.
3. Subsequently, another employee of the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Kumar
th
was apprehended on 6 April, 2002 and fine of Rs.800/- was imposed.
th
4. On 28 May, 2005, Mr. Raj Kumar, an employee of the petitioner was
found to be carrying a bundle of requisition slips and railway tickets for
cancellation. It was noticed that addresses mentioned in the requisition forms
did not tally with the addresses given in the booking register and 9 tickets did
not have entry in the booking register maintained by the petitioner.
Accordingly, a show cause notice dated___.08.05 was issued to the
petitioner. By the said show cause notice, the petitioner was asked to submit
their reply why action should not be taken against them under Rule 6 of the
Rail Travellers Agents Rules, 1985. In the statement of misconduct/non-
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 2
compliance, it was mentioned that during the course of preventive check by
the Vigilance staff of the Railway Board in the reservation office at Kirti Nagar,
New Delhi, irregularities were found on the part of the petitioner, which
clearly attracted and violated the Rules and Agreement. It is no doubt correct
that the statement of misconduct/irregularities could have been better
worded and more detailed. In fact specific allegations should have been made
against the petitioner. However, the petitioner was not prejudiced because of
lack of details and particulars in the show cause notice. The petitioner was
fully aware of the facts and what had happened pursuant to the surprise check
conducted by Vigilance staff of the Railway Board. In reply to the show cause
th
notice dated 15 September, 2005, the petitioner gave their explanation
stating inter alia, that keeping in view the urgency, clients, had given booking
on telephone and the petitioner had send their employee directly for
reservation even without requisition slip being filled up by the client and
details were incorrectly recorded in the requisition slip. They have also
admitted that required entries in the register were not made. The petitioner
apologized for their irregularities and had stated that in future they shall take
all precautions so that such incidents were not repeated.
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 3
th
5. The reply was considered and by the belated order dated 30 October,
2007, the license was directed to be cancelled and the petitioner was black
listed. This order should have been passed earlier, but mere delay in passing
of the order, cannot be a ground to set aside the impugned order in the facts
and circumstances of the present case. The petitioner had virtually admitted
th
their fault in the reply to the show cause notice dated 15 September, 2005.
th
The impugned order dated 30 October, 2007, specifically records that the
requisition forms found in possession of Mr. Raj Kumar, had addresses which
did not tally with the addresses in the booking register and nine tickets had no
entry in the register. There was clear violation of terms and conditions of the
license. This was the third occasion when the petitioner was found to be at
fault and violating the Rules. In these circumstances, I do not find any merit in
the present writ petition and the same is dismissed. No costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
NOVEMBER 23, 2009
NA/ P
W.P.(C)8206/2007 Page 4