Single judge dismissed three writ petitions challenging the cancellation of shopping stall licenses and enhanced license fees at a Dhanbad Railway station, relying on contract terms permitting fee enhancement at the administration's discretion.
Instant writ petitions dismissed; interim orders vacated; pending I.A.s closed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI (Civil Writ Jurisdiction)
W.P.(C) No. 5879 of 2006
….....
Kumar Sambhava …. ..... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …. …... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 7062 of 2006
….....
Gurdip Singh …. ..... Petitioner Versus
The Union of India & Ors. …... ….... Respondents
With
W.P.(C) No. 7281 of 2006
….....
Gurdip Singh …. ..... Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …... ….... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents/ Railways : Mr. Gautam Rakesh, Advocate
16/21.03.2022.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Birendra Kumar in W.P.(C) No.5879/2006 has submitted that petitioner - Kumar Sambhava, S/o Sri M. N. Prasad has preferred this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.09.2006 (served to the petitioner on 19.09.2006), issued under the signature of Divisional Engineer (HQ), East Central Railways, Dhanbad, whereby the respondents have rejected the representation made by the petitioner on 18.09.2006 itself pursuant to order passed on 13.09.2006 in L.P.A. No.390/2006 passed by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court and has also passed an order of cancellation of licence of the petitioner in relation to Stall No.25 at Railway Shopping Complex, Station Road, Dhanbad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Birendra Kumar in W.P.(C) No.7062/2006 has submitted that petitioner – Gurdip Singh, S/o Late Trilok Singh has preferred this writ petition for quashing letter No. W.466/Shopping Complex / DHN, Dhanbad, dated 18.08.2006, whereby licence of Stall No.22 has been cancelled and also for quashing letter dated 26.07.2006, issued by Divisional Engineer (HQ), East Central Railways, Dhanbad for demanding the license fee for the period from
-2-
20.10.1993 to 31.03.2007 at the increased rate of 10% and 7% on and from 01.04.2004 of rent / licence fee for the Stall No.22 of Railway Shopping Complex, Station Road, Dhanbad.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Birendra Kumar in W.P.(C) No.7281/2006 has submitted that petitioner – Gurdip Singh, S/o Late Trilok Singh has preferred this writ petition for quashing the letter dated 11.09.2006, whereby license of Stall No.24, which belongs to the petitioner has been cancelled and also to quash letter of demand dated 22.08.2006 of Rs.3,08,585/- based on 10% increase in fixed rent / licence fee for Stall No.24 and revise bill dated 11.08.2006 of Railway Shopping Center, Station Road, Dhanbad.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that petitioners entered into an agreement with South Eastern Railway Administration in the year, 1992 with respect to the shops, granted to the petitioners on a fixed rent, which was subsequently enhanced with retrospective effect on the basis of railway circular of the year, 1995, but without any information or consent of the petitioners, subsequently the railway issued circular in the year, 2005, without consent of the petitioners and thus such enhancement of rent by the railway without consent of the petitioners is bad in law.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that they have paid all the license fee as per the old rate and they are challenging only the enhanced rate before this Court, as such, writ petitions may be allowed.
Learned counsel for the respondents /Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted that petitioner- Kumar Sambhava in W.P.(C) No.5879/2006 was allotted stall No.25, Area- 85 Sqft of the Railway shopping complex over a place of land near Railway Station, Dhanbad vide Office order No.W 468/20/Stall No.25 dated 22.09.1992 at Rs.39,600/- only for one year on yearly renewal basis, which is clearly mentioned in the same.
Learned counsel for the respondents / Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has further submitted that the license of the petitioner Kumar Sambhava (W.P.(C) No.5879/2006) has expired on completion of one year as per agreement vide allotment letter dated 22.09.1992. Thereafter petitioner did not request/offer to Railway Administration for further renewal of his license. Though the
-3-
executed agreement is traceless in this office of the Railway, but if it is in possession of the petitioner, he may be asked to produce the same. However, a sample of standard form of agreement executed for the time being i.e. the year of 1991 & 1992 for shop No.18 in favour of Smt. Janki Devi is submitted herewith for kind perusal with regard to terms and conditions.
Learned counsel for the respondents / Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has further submitted, that as per para-10 of the performa agreement with respect to Smt. Janki Devi, it has been stipulated that 'the license or occupation fee provided for in the license agreement may be enhanced by the administration from time to time, at its sole discretion and the licensee shall be liable to pay the enhanced license or occupation fee on the expiry of the period.'
Learned counsel for the respondents/Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has further submitted, that without renewal of license, these petitioners contituned running his aforesaid shops continuously and the license fee was being paid by these petitioners on irregular basis at the old rate fixed for the year 199293. In the meantime, Railway Board vide Letter No.83/W2/LM/18/87 dated 29.08.1995 has reviewed the policy for commercial licensing of Railway land and revised the fee of license, where in para- 4 (Revision of license fee) directs that as the notional land value will increase by 10% over the previous year's land value as mentioned in para-3 of the letter, however, such document is not appended with the counter-affidavit.
This Court has asked learned counsel for the Railways to produce the document as the same is admitted by the petitioner.
Upon which learned counsel for the Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has placed photocopy of the said document before this Court and the same is being kept on record. Paras- 3, 4 and 10 of the document are as follows:-
“ 3.The licensee shall not stack or deposit coal, stone, timber or other materials within six feet of the outer edge of the station wharf adjoining the line or within five feet nine inches horisental distance from outside the nearest rail.
4.That the licensee shall not transfer or sublet the privileges mentioned in Clause 1 of hereof without obtaining the previous consent in writing of the Divisional Railway Manager of the Administration at Dhanbad.
-4-
10. That the license or occupation fee provided for in the license agreement may, by a notice in that behalf, be enhanced by the Administration from time to time at its sole discretion and the licensee shall be liable to pay the enhanced license or occupation fee on the expiry of the period, as may be prescribed in such notice as aforesaid.”
The aforesaid fact has been recorded from photocopy of the document supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents/Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh, which has been admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Birendra Kumar.
Learned counsel for the respondents / Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has further submitted, that it is a public premises, which is being occupied by the writ petitioners illegally because of pendency of the writ petitions before this Court since 2006, though they have not complied the conditions of the agreement entered initially between the writ petitioners with South Eastern Railway Administration in the year, 1992, as such, writ petitions may be dismissed.
Learned counsel for the respondents / Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has further submitted that Section 2(g) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 states that “unauthorised occupation”, in relation to any public premises, means the occupation by any person of the public premises without authority for such occupation, and includes and continuance in occupation by any person of the public premises after the authority (whether by way of grant or any other mode of transfer) under which he was allowed to occupy the premises has expired or has been determined for any reason whatsoever.”
Under the aforesaid circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents/Railway, Mr. Gautam Rakesh has submitted, that after expiry of the agreement of the year, 1992, the occupation of the writ petitioners are unauthorized occupation, as such, the writ petitions are not maintainable.
After hearing, learned counsel for the parties and on the basis of the document brought on record, though the same has not been appended in the counter affidavit, but photo copy of the same has been produced
-5-
before the Court at the time of hearing, which has been admitted to be served upon the petitioners, through learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Birendra Kumar, it is sample copy executed with another person, as the agreement of the petitioners have been lost by the Railway office and petitioners have also not brought the same on record, but the sample agreement shows that licensee has to comply all the conditions of the Railway. Since the writ petitioners have not denied the same nor produce any document contrary to the same, as such, this Court is relying upon the copy of an agreement, which was executed by the Railway Administration with another licensee and para-10 of the said agreement says that the license or occupation fee provided for in the license agreement may, by a notice in that behalf, be enhanced by the Administration from time to time at its sole discretion and the licensee shall be liable to pay the enhanced license or occupation fee on the expiry of the period, as may be prescribed in such notice as aforesaid. From perusal of para- 10 of the said agreement, it appears that it was binding upon the petitioners to comply all the conditions of the Railway Administration with regard to enhancement of rent, but since the petitioners have not complied the same, as such, in view of the agreement, which has been brought on record by the Railways, the writ petitions are fit to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the instant Writ Petitions are dismissed.
The interim orders granted earlier vide order dated 19.12.2006 in W.P. (C) No.7281/2006 and vide order dated 18.12.2006 in W.P.(C) No.7062/2006 are hereby vacated.
All the pending I.As. stands closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
Jay/
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the licence holders of a Railway shopping complex remained in lawful occupation after the expiry of their initial 1992 agreement.
Whether the Railway Administration was justified in cancelling the licence and charging enhanced fees based on clause 10 of the standard agreement.
Whether writ petitions challenging the cancellation of licence and enhanced rent should be dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kumar Sambhava
Gurdip Singh
Union of India
Kailash Prasad Deo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
