The General Manager /Mcs v. M/S.Vasantham Catering Rep.By Its Proprietor M. Mohammed Akbar,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 13.02.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN and C.M.P.(MD)No.6129 of 2021 1.The General Manager / MCS, IRCTC Corporate Office, New Delhi.

2.The Group General Manager, IRCTC, South Zone, 6A, The Rain Tree Place, No.9, Mc.Nichols Road, Chetpet, Chennai-670 031.

... Appellant / Respondents Vs M/s.Vasantham Catering, Rep. by its Proprietor, M.Mohammed Akbar, No.137/18, A Block, Bharathiyar Street, Trichy, Tamil Nadu 620 001.

... Respondent / Petitioner 1/4

PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent, praying this Court to set aside the order dated 17.04.2021 passed in W.P. (MD)No.3216 of 2021 on the file of this Court and thereby allow this writ appeal.

For Appellants : Mr.S.Manohar For Respondent : Mr.C.Mahadevan

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.) Heard both sides.

2. The respondent herein was granted license to provide on-board catering services in special trains during Covid-19 Pandemic. Copy of the license order dated 12.11.2020 has been enclosed in the typed set of papers. The license was revoked vide order dated 10.02.2021. Questioning the same, the licensee filed W.P.(MD)No.3216 of 2021. The writ petition was allowed on 17.04.2021 by the learned single Judge. Challenging the same, IRCTC has filed this writ appeal. 2/4

3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant reiterated all the contentions set out in the memorandum of grounds of writ appeal. He pressed the fact that Madurai Bench of Madras High Court would not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition. Paragraph No.12 of the order passed by the learned single Judge reads as follows:- "12. The impugned order passed by the first respondent is bereft of any reasons and it has been passed by relying upon some inspection reports, which were not furnished to the petitioner. Hence, the impugned order passed by the first respondent requires interference of this Court."

4. We are satisfied that the learned Judge was justified in interfering. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ appeal. The Writ Appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. (G.R.S., J.) (M.J.R., J.) 13.02.2025 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No NCC : Yes / No rmi 3/4

G.R.SWAMINATHAN, J.

AND M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.

rmi W.A.(MD) No.1495 of 2021 13.02.2025 4/4