Harjeet Kaur vs. Union Of INDIA And Others

Held

The Court did not make a substantive finding on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the third trolley. The petitioner, faced with the respondents' submission that the allotment letter (Annexure P-3) was withdrawn due to a typographical error and that she could not benefit from such an error, sought and was granted permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue her representation dated 03.09.2025. No specific issue was expressly left undecided, as the matter was resolved by withdrawal.

Facts

The petitioner, Harjeet Kaur, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondent (Union of India and others) to hand over possession of a third trolley at Ludhiana railway station. She had been allotted three trolleys by letter dated 26.08.2025, at an annual license fee of Rs.9,85,175/-. While possession of two trolleys was handed over, the third was not. The petitioner had made a representation dated 03.09.2025, which was pending. The respondents produced a communication dated 29.08.2025, which stated that the license fee for her catering contract (for one stall and one trolley) had been revised. This communication also advised the petitioner to submit her GST number and mentioned that renewal would be subject to payment of dues, satisfactory performance, and the outcome of pending court cases. The respondents' counsel stated that the earlier letter (Annexure P-3) had an inadvertent error and was withdrawn, asserting that the petitioner could not benefit from a typographical mistake.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the possession of the third trolley despite the withdrawal of the allotment letter due to an alleged typographical error? (Question of mixed law and fact, turning on principles of contract law and administrative fairness). Contentions: Petitioner: Argued that she was allotted three trolleys and possession of only two had been handed over. She sought the handover of the third trolley and the decision on her representation. Respondents: Contended that the allotment letter (Annexure P-3) contained an inadvertent error and had been withdrawn. They asserted that the petitioner could not claim any benefit from a typographical mistake. They also referred to a communication revising the license fee for a stall and one trolley, and advised submission of GST number, linking renewal to payment of dues and satisfactory performance, as well as the outcome of pending litigation.