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

The petitioner applied online for grant of a lease of railway land, and his application was registered on 7 April 2024.

The Railway authorities allegedly accepted the application, calculated the charges payable, and forwarded a lease agreement for execution. Despite completion of these formalities, the lease agreement was not executed or granted.

The respondents stated that the petitioner’s application would be considered in accordance with the applicable policy and law, subject to submission of a proper application and requisite documents.

Whether the respondents were required to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of railway land lease/licence in accordance with Paragraph 3.4.3 of the Policy for Management of Railway Land.

Whether the Court should direct execution and implementation of the lease agreement, or instead require the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s application subject to eligibility and completion of requisite formalities.

The Court applied Paragraph 3.4.3 of the Policy for Management of Railway Land, which provides that the Railway shall grant a land lease/licence within 90 days from the date of registration of the application on the online portal.

The Court further applied the administrative-law principle that the competent authority must consider and decide an eligible applicant’s claim in accordance with the governing policy, applicable law, and prescribed formalities.

The Court noted that the respondents did not dispute the applicability of Paragraph 3.4.3 or the requirement to process eligible applications within the prescribed period.

However, rather than directly ordering execution of the lease, the Court directed the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s application in accordance with the applicable policy, provided that he was otherwise eligible and had completed all requisite formalities.

The Court also permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh representation with relevant documents, thereby ensuring administrative reconsideration without itself determining the petitioner’s entitlement to the lease.

The respondents were directed to consider and decide the petitioner’s application for grant of land lease/licence in accordance with the applicable policy and within the stipulated period, subject to the petitioner’s eligibility and completion of all formalities.

If the petitioner submitted a fresh representation with relevant documents, the competent authority was directed to decide and communicate the decision preferably within 30 days from receipt of the order.

No direct order mandating execution of the lease agreement was issued.