Santan Kumar Yadav v. Union Of India And ORS.

22.07.

Ct. No.

WPA 19807 of 2022 Sanatan Kumar Yadav Vs.

Union of India and others.

--------------- Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, Mrs. Saptamita Paramanick.

... for the petitioner.

Mr. Bipul Kumar Mondal, Ms. Sumita Sarkar.

... for the Union of India.

1. Alleging inaction on the part of the concerned respondents Ab in considering the petitioner's representation for renewal of his porter licence bearing Badge No. 228/HWH, Serial No. 6889, the present writ petition has been preferred.

2. Mr. Debrup Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate representing the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was a licensed porter under the Eastern Railway and was attached to Howrah Railway Station. Until 2013, he regularly paid all licence fees and worked as a porter at the station without any blemish. Subsequently, he faced personal turmoil, due to which he could not continue paying the licence fees. In the meantime, his father passed away in 2018, and his family was severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. However, after recovering from that condition, the petitioner submitted an application for renewal of his licence upon payment of the arrear fees. Despite receipt of the petitioner's representation, no effective steps have been taken in this regard.

4. Mr. Bipul Kumar Mondal, learned Advocate representing

the Union of India, submits that upon receipt of the petitioner's representation on two occasions, two letters addressed to the petitioner were sent to the address mentioned in the representation; however, both letters were returned to the respondents with the endorsement 'no person lives at that address.'

5. He further submits that, according to the applicable Rules, in case of non-payment of licence fees for a period of three months, the licence granted in favour of the porter is liable to be cancelled. He also submits that in the present case, the petitioner's licence has been cancelled, and the authority made an effort to communicate the cancellation order. However, the communication could not be completed. Mr. Mondal submits that the order of cancellation will be communicated to the petitioner shortly.

6. Heard the learned Advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties.

7. From the submissions made on behalf of the respondents, it appears that the petitioner's prayer for renewal of the porter licence has already been rejected by the respondent authorities. In light of such facts and circumstances, the railway authority is directed to communicate the order of cancellation of the petitioner's prayer for renewal of the porter licence to the petitioner at his address- 882, Kodahara, Naubraar, Dalan Chhapra, Ballia, Uttar Pradesh - 277204. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the order of cancellation before the appropriate forum, if

so permitted under the law.

8. With these observations and order, this writ petition is disposed of.

9. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)