of issuance of the Master Circular dated 10.02.2005 by the Railway Board, which is the highest policy making authority of Indian Railways, there has been a ban of temporary licensing of Railway lands to private individuals for the purpose of setting up shops, commercial offices, vending stalls, clinics, etc. not connected with the Railway working. The Master Circular has further stipulated that only in exceptional cases, such licensing is to be done with the prior approval of the Railway Board and the license fee must be fixed by resorting to public auction/open tender process for getting the maximum revenue. The Master Circular has further prescribed that licenses of existing licensees, not connected with the Railway working, may, however, be renewed from time to time so long as the land is not required by the Railway for its own purpose but on new terms and conditions indicated in the Master Circular. It is pertinent to mention herein that during the pendency of these four writ petitions, the petitioners had contended that they were not permitted to shift to the alternative/new locations, earlier offered to them. By an interim order dated 26.02.2018, the petitioners were allowed to shift to the alternative/new locations, by making it clear that such shifting of the petitioners to the alternative/new locations would be a purely temporary arrangement and shall not create any right or interest in their favour over the land. The occupation of the alternative/new locations by the petitioners was made subject to further orders. By annexing a Plan with its affidavit, the respondent Railway authorities have stated that an exercise is being undertaken to upgrade and develop the Barpeta Road Railway Station. The respondent Railway authorities have stated that the places where the shops of the petitioners had been shifted in terms of the interim order dated 26.10.2018, are now urgently required by the Railways on account of the proposed construction of an Officers’ Rest House and for their own use. The petitioners have not paid nor the respondent Railway authorities have accepted any license fees from the petitioners since the year 2014 and they are incurring losses of a huge amount of revenue in view of unauthorized occupation of the petitioners. The petitioners have not brought anything to dislodge the contention of the Railway authorities that the respondent no. 3 had no power, authority and jurisdiction, in the absence of any approval/permission from the Competent Authority, to allot any plot of Railway land or to grant license to any person to occupy any Railway land. It cannot be accepted that the letter dated 25.10.2005 and the consequent shifting to the alternative/new locations have created any license arrangements between the petitioners and the respondent Railway authorities. The statute, that is, the Public Premises Act has empowered the competent authority to act in the public interests and as owners of the plots of lands, the competent authority in the respondent Railway is entitled to deal with the Railway lands [Public Premises] in greater public interests. The respondent Railway authorities have asserted that there is urgent requirement of the plots of lands under reference herein for development of
