K. Padmaia v. Railways, New Delhi
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Cause title
I THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION NO: 33477 OF 2025 Between: K. Padmaia, W/o K. Jaya Reddy, Aged about 55 years, R/o H.No.30- 641 l4l1A, Chandragiri Colony, Malkajgiri, Hyderabad. ...PETITIONER
AND 1 Union of lndia, Represented by its Principal Secretary, I\,4inistry of lndian Railways, New Delhi- 2 Senior Divisional Commercial lvlanager, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, Bengaluru. I Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more parttcularly one in nature of Writ ...RESPONDENTS
I I of Manbamus, directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation dated 14.10.2025 of the petitioner made to the 2nd respondent and pass the appropiiate orders in accordance with law, and directing the 2nd respondent not to takei coercive steps against the petitioner for non-payment of full amount of licencelfee for the next quarter till the consideration of the said representation of the petitioner, by declaring the inaction of the 2nd respondent on the said representation of the petitioner, is highly unjust, arbitrary and violative of articles of 14'and 21 of the constitution of lndia and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under section 15'r cpc praying that in the rrcumstances stated in the affidavit fire<r in support of the petition, the High coJ r may be pleased to direct the 2nd respondent to consider the representation ciilt :d i4.10.202s of rhe petitioner for reducement of license fee and for non- c c ectior of GST, as mentioned in the said representatron rerating to the License of thr: petitioner for operation and maintenance of toirets and bathrooms in r SR Bengaruru city Railway station and direct the 2nd respondent not to take cc:rcive steps against the petitioner for non -payment of full amount of licence fe.e for next quarter till consideration of the said representation of the petitioner an r passing of orders thereon by the 2nd respondent, pending disposar of the abo, zr writ petition. l Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI C.RAMACHANDRA RAJU Couns6l for the Respondents: SMT RAJYA LAKSHMI, REp. DEPUry SOLtCtToR GENERT L OF tNDtA i I The Coiurt made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION No.33477 of 2025
ORDER:
Tiris Writ Petition is filed challenging the inaction of rcsp<;ndent No.2 in not considering and disposing of the pctitiorrer's representation dated 14.1O.2025, seeking direction not to take coercive steps against the petitioner for non- pa\-ment of full amount of licence fee for the next quarter till the r:orrsiclcration of the said representation of the petitioner. )-. Iie:u'd Sri C. Ramachandra Raju, learned counsel for the pctitioner and Smt. Rajya Lakshmi, learned counsel rcprcst--nting iearned Deputy Solicitor Genera-l of India for the l'csponden ts
Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions on tl-rc lincs of w'rit affidavit and requested this Court to dircct rt-'spon<icnt No.2 to consider the petitioner's representation darte cl 1 4 .1O.2025 as expeditiously as possible. tl. Lcarned corlnsel appearing on beha-lf of the Dcputy Solir-'itor General of India for the lespondents submits that if \--=-!r 2 the said petitioner's represcntation is st I pending for consideration, rcspondent No.2 may be directecl lo considcr ttrc said petitioner's representation and pass approl rizrte ordcrs in accordance rvitl'r law.
In view, of the submissions made by c rrnerl ctrunsel appearing on eiLher side and without expressirrll ,n.y opini,)n orr the merits o[ the case, this Writ Petition is disp,r, ed o1-dirccting respondent No.2 to considcr the petitioner's r-epre sentation dated 14.IO.2O25 and pass appropriate orderri rn a<:cordance with law within a period of one (01) week fro n th,: date of receipt of a copv of this order and communlcatc t re sarne to the petitioner. No costs Miscellzrncous applications, if any pendin l, sl-r al1 stand closed. //TRUE COPY// ASSI:; SD/- K.MADHAVI 'ANT REgI*STRAR @ S ECTION OFFICER To, 1 The Principal Secretary, Ministry of lndian Railways' l'l' w Delhi, Union of lndia. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager' South Westerrn Railway' Bengaluru Division, Divisional Office, Commercial Branch, 3engaluru' One CC to SRI C RAIr/ACHANDRA RAJU, Advocate [OPL ]l oneCCtoDEPUTYSOLICITORGENERALoFINDIA'|lighilourtforthe State of Telangana at Hyderabad IOPtJC] ; 2 3 4
5. Two CD CoPies BSR I i tM, CC TODAY I ' ^ -:::::-':---. 4): - - \!r lr f< : ..')- '( ( _r;:'\... '..\ ,. , '.-...,i .-- \': i i 1 :11 ?1115 ,1. i, '"1',' -...' '; .. .:. ',,. -':'" 'l I I I I HIGH COURT DATED: 0611112025 I ORD ER t WP.NI o.33477 of 2025 i I I I DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS \\ b
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.