M/S Kalu Ram Babu Lal v. The East Central Railways And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4705 of 2017 =========================================================== M/s Kalu Ram Babu Lal, Station Road, Bandhan Tola, Arrah, Bhojpur through its Proprietor Pramod Kumar Khemani S/o Late Moti Lal Khemani R/o Station Road, Bandhan Tola, Arrah, District - Bhojpur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The East Central Railways, Danapur Division.

2. Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railways, Danapur Division.

3. Senior Divisional Engineer (3), East Central Railways, Danapur Division. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surya Nilambari, Adv. Mr. Kumar Manavendra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjan Kumar Sharan, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 21-04-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

In the present writ application, the petitioner was granted the lease with respect to 9066 Sq.ft. of land adjacent to the Arra Railway Station where the petitioner was running his petrol pump since 1962. Now the Railway has consciously decided to utilize the aforesaid land which was given to the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose for the extending the passengers' facility as well as for beautification of the aforesaid Arra railway station. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the authority and procedure but, he submits that the said premise will not

Patna High Court CWJC No.4705 of 2017 dt.21-04-2017 be in use just in recent future but it will take sometime and when the time will come, he will vacate the premises on their own. The Railway has consciously decided for extending more facility to the passengers. In such view of the matter, in a bigger public cause, the Court should not interfere in the matter of development and beautification of the station as also for extension of the facility to the petitioner.

In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he wants to approach the authority concerned for raising the grievance. The petitioner is given liberty to file an application before the authority concerned who will decide the case in accordance with law.

With the aforementioned observation and liberty, this application is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Rishi/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.04.2017 Transmission Date NA