Tahir Khan vs. The Union Of INDIA And 6 Ors

Held

The Court held that the order dated 15.08.2018 was not clear as to whether it applied to the pan shop or the tea stall or both. However, referencing the plaint in Declaratory Suit No. 7/1999, the Court observed that the suit was specifically against an order dated 04.08.1999 concerning the pan shop only, not the tea stall. Consequently, the dismissal of DS No. 7/1999 and the vacation of the injunction order were relatable only to the pan shop. The Court ruled that the Respondent Authorities were at liberty to take action based on the order dated 15.08.2018 only in respect to the pan shop and not the tea stall. The Court explicitly stated that it had not dealt with the rights of the petitioner concerning the tea stall, leaving it to the Railway administration to decide as per applicable circulars. The interim order dated 28.09.2018 no longer survived.

Facts

The petitioner, Tahir Khan, inherited vending permissions from his grandfather and father at Dimapur Railway Station. These permissions were for a tea stall selling puri, chapatti, sweets, and a separate 'Dallah' for pan, biri, and cigarettes. The petitioner claims the last renewal for the tea stall was on August 17, 2018, and he had been paying all dues. In August 1999, a notice was issued to remove the pan shop, leading to a Declaratory Suit (DS No. 7/1999) filed by the petitioner's father. The suit was dismissed, and an injunction vacated on June 16, 2017. Subsequently, on August 15, 2018, an order was issued by the Inspector (Commercial), Lumding, directing the removal of both the tea shop and the pan counter, citing the dismissal of the suit. The petitioner then approached the High Court.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order dated 15.08.2018, directing the removal of the petitioner's stalls, is valid and legal, considering it was based on the dismissal of Declaratory Suit No. 7/1999? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the order dated 15.08.2018 was illegal because the dismissed suit (DS No. 7/1999) pertained only to the pan stall and not the tea stall. Therefore, the dismissal of the suit should not have led to the removal of both establishments. The petitioner initially sought directions to allot space and allow continuation of the tea stall but later pressed only the challenge to the 15.08.2018 order. Revenue/State's arguments: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondents (Union of India and others). However, their action of issuing the impugned order suggests they relied on the dismissal of the suit as a basis for removal.