Facts
The petitioner sought the transfer of a licensed porter’s badge (Buckle No. 1838) previously held by his brother-in-law (Jijaji), Taj Ismail. Ismail was declared medically unfit in 2007 and subsequently passed away.
Source reference: p. 2The petitioner’s initial application for transfer in 2007 was followed by a rejection in 2013 due to discrepancies in his Ration Card.
Source reference: p. 2After two rounds of litigation (SCA No. 8819/2013 and SCA No. 3410/2016), the High Court directed the respondent to reconsider the case.
Source reference: p. 3The respondent authority rejected the application again on 22.04.2019, citing suppression of material facts and failure to meet policy parameters.
Source reference: p. 3, 4The petitioner then filed the present application to quash the rejection and the underlying Railway Board circulars.
Source reference: p. 1-2Issues
1. Whether the petitioner qualifies as a "near relative" entitled to the transfer of a porter license badge under the relevant Railway Board policies.
Source reference: p. 32. Whether the respondent’s rejection of the transfer application was arbitrary, illegal, or contrary to the established transfer policy.
Source reference: p. 3-4Law Applied
Railway Board Policy dated 09.12.1988 (referenced as Policy No. 85/TG-(ii)/1010/08), which permits the transfer of a licensed porter’s badge to "near relatives"—defined to include a son (including adopted), brother, brother’s son, or wife’s brother—in the event of the porter’s death or physical infirmity.
Source reference: p. 3, 4Commercial Circular No. 62/2009 dated 29.10.2009, which outlines current parameters for such transfers.
Source reference: p. 2, 4Reasoning
The Court examined the respondent's contention that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient proof of his relationship with the deceased buckle holder.
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner had engaged in the "suppression of material facts" by filing false and contradictory affidavits; specifically, the petitioner claimed in 2008 that he had no ration card but later produced one in 2009 to verify his address.
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner regularly shifted his stance before the authorities regarding his status as a "near relative".
Source reference: p. 4The petitioner did not fulfill the mandatory parameters of the 1988 and 2009 policies, and the respondent’s decision was based on these factual inconsistencies and the failure to establish a valid legal claim to the badge.
Source reference: p. 4-5Holding
The petition was devoid of merit as the petitioner failed to satisfy the requirements of the transfer policy and had provided contradictory information to the authorities.
The petition was dismissed, and the Rule was discharged with no order as to costs, upholding the respondent's order dated 22.04.2019.
Source reference: p. 3, 5Original Court PDF
SHAIKH @ GHANCHI ABDULHAMID ABDULKARIMvsSENIOR DCM, RAILWAY AHMEDABAD DIVISION
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in