Railway officials kept tea-stall licence issue pending for 11 years despite court order; Gujarat High Court orders licence and costs for heirs

The Railway Authorities appealed against the order allowing the original petitioner to continue operating a tea and refreshment stall at Wankaner Junction Railway Station, subject to payment of the licence fee and completion of procedural formalities.

The licence had originally been granted to the petitioner’s father and later transferred to his mother; the Railways maintained that it expired on 31 December 2013 and had not been renewed.

Following the mother’s death in October 2013, an application was made seeking transfer of the licence to a family member under the Railways’ catering policy. The application remained undecided, although the Railways later directed the family to close the stall and vacate it.

The Single Judge quashed the closure communication. No stay of that order was granted during the pendency of the appeal, but the family continued to receive only weekly provisional licence-fee communications rather than a licence.

Whether the Single Judge’s order setting aside the closure communication and permitting continued operation of the stall warranted interference, given that the licence term had expired.

Whether the Railway Authorities’ failure to decide the transfer application and their continued failure to complete the licensing formalities complied with the unstayed order of the Writ Court.

The judgment identifies no specific statute or precedent. It relies on the applicable Railway catering policy, under which a licence could be transferred to a spouse or legal heir following the original licensee’s death, subject to approval by the competent Railway authority.

It applies the principles that administrative action must not be arbitrary and that an order of the Writ Court remains operative and must be complied with unless stayed.

The Court found that the family had sought transfer under the policy but the Railway Authorities had left the application undecided, then relied on expiry of the licence to direct the family to vacate the stall.

That sequence was arbitrary, as the Railways could not keep the application pending while requiring closure. Further, the Writ Court’s order had not been stayed; issuing weekly fee demands without completing the directed licensing formalities did not satisfy that order.

The Court therefore rejected the Railways’ challenge and directed the competent authority to process a fresh application, while describing the non-compliance as contemptuous.

The Railway Authorities were directed to allow the heirs to apply for a fresh licence and, upon receipt of the application, to complete the requisite formalities within ten days in accordance with applicable rules and policies; the application could not be rejected on any ground.

The competent authority was also directed to report compliance to the Registrar General within a further ten days, with liberty to the heirs to seek contempt relief in case of non-compliance.

The Railways were ordered to deposit exemplary costs of Rs. 15,000 within two weeks for disbursement to the heirs, subject to verification.