Dismissed¶32

Abdul Hoque Mollah v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC9 Apr 2025WPA/27781/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WPA 27781 of 2024; Abdul Hoque Mollah v. Union of India & Ors.; Calcutta High Court; Om Narayan Rai, J.; 09.04.2025; Eastern Railway; Station Manager Dakshin Barasat; parking lots DBT-1 and DBT-4; Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter stand; licensee fees arrears; termination of licence; admitted default; eviction/vacation notice dated November 8, 2024; notices dated August 16, 2024 and August 27, 2024; representation dated November 11, 2024; arbitration clause; writ petition dismissed; no order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

None substantive; the writ petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Ancillary directions only: the Learned Advocate for the Railway authorities to supply a copy of the agreement to the petitioner's advocate, and urgent certified photocopy of the order to be supplied expeditiously if applied for. ¶32

Abdul Hoque Mollah Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶32

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, whose licence to operate the Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter parking stands DBT-1 and DBT-4 was terminated for admitted default in payment of licensee fees, is entitled to any relief in the writ petition against the notice dated November 8, 2024 requiring vacation of the parking lots. +3 more

¶24

Court's answer

No relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The case is one of admitted default in payment of licensee fees, on account of which the licence for operating the parking space had already been terminated by the Railway authorities.

¶26

Key takeaways

Since the respondents had already taken a step to terminate the petitioner's licence and issued notice of vacating the parking lot, the Court cannot accept the petitioner's request to injunct the respondents from evicting him after directing them to accept the arrears of licence fees.ratio¶28
No purpose would be served by directing the respondents to consider the representation dated November 11, 2024, since the licence has already been terminated and notice to quit and vacate has been issued.ratio¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (WPA 27781 of 2024), decided 09.04.2025 by Om Narayan Rai, J. — Abdul Hoque Mollah v. Union of India & Ors.: Petitioner challenged a notice dated November 8, 2024 issued by the Station Manager, Dakshin Barasat, Eastern Railway directing him to vacate Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter parking lots DBT-1 and DBT-4. He sought restraint on eviction upon making good arrears of licensee fees (payments for third to sixth quarters shown at page 23 of the writ petition) and consideration of his representation dated November 11, 2024. Respondents showed notices dated August 16, 2024 (received August 21, 2024) and August 27, 2024, asserted termination of the licence for admitted default, and pointed to an arbitration clause in the agreement. The Court held this to be a case of admitted default, declined to injunct eviction upon acceptance of arrears, held that directing consideration of the representation would serve no purpose since the licence stood terminated and notice to quit and vacate had been issued, and dismissed the writ petition as not entertained, leaving the petitioner free to pursue other lawful remedies. The Railway authorities were directed to supply a copy of the agreement to the petitioner's advocate. No order as to costs.

¶1

31 09.04.2025 Ct. No. 551 Jayanta

¶2

WPA 27781 of 2024

¶3

Abdul Hoque Mollah vs.

¶4

Union of India & Ors.

¶5

Ms. Joyee Maiti Ms. Arpita Paul Ms. Umme Habiba Khatun

¶6

….For the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Animesh Mukherjee

¶8

….For the Respondents/E.R.

¶9

Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept on record.

¶10

The petitioner lays challenge to a notice dated November 8, 2024 issued by the Station Manager, Dakshin Barasat, Eastern Railway whereby the petitioner has been asked to vacate the Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter parking lots being DBT-1 and DBT-4.

¶11

The petitioner invites the attention of the Court to a notice dated November 3, 2022 whereby the schedule of payment of the licensee fees for the purpose of running/operating the aforesaid Cycle/Motor Cycle/Scooter stand being DBT-4 at Dakashin Barasat Railway Station was brought to the notice of the petitioner and the petitioner was requested to pay the licensee fees for the period of August 22, 2022 to November 10, 2022.

¶12

The petitioner further draws the attention of the Court to certain payments made by the petitioner allegedly in respect of third, fourth, fifth and sixth quarters at page 23 of the writ petition It is further

¶13

¶14

submitted that the writ petitioner is willing to make good the default by paying arrears and that there would be no further default. It is submitted that the Respondents should be restrained from evicting the petitioner upon receipt of the payments as aforesaid.

¶15

The learned advocate appearing for the respondents opposes the writ petition and submits that although the payments have been stated to have been made in respect of third, fourth, fifth and sixth quarters as would be appearing from page 23 of the writ petition, but no payment was evidently made thereafter and as such the petitioner was issued the notice dated August 16, 2024 which was duly received by the petitioner on August 21, 2024.

¶16

It has been further submitted that a further notice dated August 27, 2024 was also issued to the petitioner but receipt of the same was not acknowledged by the petitioner. It has been submitted that the petitioner has been illegally occupying the said space/parking lot despite the petitioner’s license having been terminated due to default on the part of the petitioner.

¶17

The Learned Advocate for petitioner submits in response that the petitioner had made a representation dated November 11, 2024 to the respondent Railway authorities which has not yet been considered and requests that direction may be made upon the

¶18

¶19

respondent Railway authorities to consider the said representation.

¶20

Learned advocate appearing for the respondent opposes such request.

¶21

The learned advocate appearing for the respondents has also produced before the Court a copy of the agreement between the petitioner and the respondent to show that the same contains an arbitration Clause and submits that the petitioner may be relegated to the Arbitral forum for arbitration of the disputes that might have a reason between the parties.

¶22

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner disputes such issues and submits that no such agreement was handed over to the petitioner.

¶23

A copy of the instructions along with the documents handed up to the Court by the learned Advocate for Railway authorities is taken on record.

¶24

Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and having perused the material on record, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant writ petition.

¶25

It appears from the material on record that the license of the petitioner for operating the aforesaid parking space has been terminated by the Railway authorities being upon default being committed by the petitioner.

¶26

This is a case of admitted default.

¶27

¶28

In view of the fact that the respondent has already taken a step to terminate the petitioner’s license and notice of vacating of the said parking lot has been issued by the respondent, this Court cannot accept the writ petitioner’s request to injunct the Respondents from evicting the petitioner after directing the Respondents to accept the arrears of the license fees. No purpose will also be served by directing the said respondent to consider the representation dated November 11, 2024 as requested for by the learned advocate for the petitioner in view of the fact that the license has already been terminated and notice to quit and vacate has also been issued by the Respondents.

¶29

The writ petition is, therefore, not entertained.

¶30

The writ petitioner is free to avail of such other remedies that may be available to the writ petitioner in accordance with law.

¶31

The Learned Advocate for the Railway authorities shall supply a copy of the agreement stated to have been entered into between the petitioner and the respondent Railway authorities to the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner.

¶32

The writ petition being WPA 27781 of 2024, is dismissed.

¶33

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

¶34

Urgent certified photocopy of this order, if applied for, be supplied as expeditiously as possible

¶35

¶36

(Om Narayan Rai ,J.)

Abdul Hoque Mollah v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abdul Hoque Mollah v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Other Backward Classes,South Eastern Railway,Kolkata and Others Vs South Eastern Railway and Others

Aloke Kumar Jana Vs the District Magistrate South 24 Paraganas and Ors.

Sima Rani Das Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited and Ors.

Hafija Bibi and Ors. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Khagendra Nath Saha Vs State of West Bengal and Ors.

Epic Marketing Company Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.