Railway authorities must decide eligible land-lease applications under applicable policy within prescribed timelines.

The petitioner submitted an online application for grant of a lease of railway land, which was registered on 7 April 2024.

The Railway authorities accepted the application, calculated the requisite charges, and forwarded a land lease agreement for execution. However, the lease agreement was not executed or granted.

Alleging inaction and unequal treatment compared with other applicants whose leases had been granted, the petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court seeking implementation of the lease agreement or grant of the lease in accordance with the applicable policy.

The respondents submitted that the application would be considered in accordance with the policy and law and that they would comply with paragraph 3.4.3.

Whether the Railway authorities were required to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of land lease/licence in accordance with paragraph 3.4.3 of the Policy for Management of Railway Land, which prescribes a 90-day period from online registration.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to a direction for implementation or execution of the land lease agreement, subject to her eligibility and completion of the requisite formalities.

The Court applied paragraph 3.4.3 of the Policy for Management of Railway Land, under which the Railway is required to ensure grant of land lease/licence within 90 days from the date of registration of the case on the online portal.

The Court further applied the settled writ principle that a public authority may be directed to consider and decide a pending representation or application in accordance with the governing policy and law, but a writ court will not ordinarily direct grant of the substantive benefit unless the applicant is otherwise eligible and has completed all requisite formalities.

The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of paragraph 3.4.3 and expressly undertook to comply with the policy.

In view of that undertaking, the Court did not itself order execution of the lease agreement or conclusively determine the petitioner’s entitlement. Instead, it required the competent authority to examine the application under the applicable policy, while making the direction conditional upon the petitioner’s eligibility and completion of all formalities.

The Court also provided a procedural remedy by permitting the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents, which the authority was directed to decide and communicate at the earliest, preferably within 30 days.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of land lease/licence in accordance with the Policy for Management of Railway Land, including paragraph 3.4.3, provided that the petitioner was otherwise eligible and had completed the requisite formalities.

If the petitioner submitted a fresh representation with all relevant documents, the competent authority was directed to decide it in accordance with law and communicate the decision preferably within 30 days of receiving the order.

No direct mandamus to execute the lease agreement was issued.