Back
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Barin Ghosh, J.
S. K. Chatterjee & Sons & Ors.
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
T. K. Mondal & Sons & Ors.
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
N. K. Mondal & Sons & Ors.
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993
C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993
W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000
Decided On: June 29, 2001
LICENCE FEE - ASSESSMENT - CATERING/VENDING CONTRACTS - INDIAN RAILWAYS - PARAMETERS - REVISED LICENCE FEE - JUDICIAL SCRUTINY - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1971.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, who were licensees of tea stalls on railway property, challenged the revised license fee imposed by the Railway Administration. The Railway Administration claimed that the revised fee was determined in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Railway Board, which provided for a lump-sum license fee based on factors such as sales potential, existing rent, and other relevant factors.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Railway Administration had not properly followed the guidelines issued by the Railway Board in determining the revised license fee. The court noted that the Railway Administration had relied on a superseded decision of the Railway Board, which had been replaced by a new decision in 1987. The court also found that the Railway Administration had not taken into account all of the relevant factors specified in the 1987 decision, such as the number of vendors, the importance of the station, and the size of the stall.
Issues: 1. Whether the Railway Administration had properly followed the guidelines issued by the Railway Board in determining the revised license fee? 2. Whether the Railway Administration had taken into account all of the relevant factors specified in the 1987 decision?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Railway Administration had not properly followed the guidelines issued by the Railway Board in determining the revised license fee. The court noted that the Railway Administration had relied on a superseded decision of the Railway Board, which had been replaced by a new decision in 1987. The court also found that the Railway Administration had not taken into account all of the relevant factors specified in the 1987 decision, such as the number of vendors, the importance of the station, and the size of the stall.
Final Decision: The court quashed the letter imposing the revised license fee and directed the Railway Administration to reassess the license fee in accordance with the guidelines issued by the Railway Board in 1987. The court also directed the Railway Administration to give the petitioners appropriate adjustment for the sums paid by them towards the license fee to be assessed in accordance with the 1987 guidelines.
Barin Ghosh, J.: The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993, was filed by M/s. S. K. Chatterjee & Sons, M/s. B.P. Chakraborty & Sons, M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons and Mr. Apter Hossain Khan challenging the revision of licence fee as communicated by the letter dated 29th March, 1993.
2. The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993, was filed by M/s. T.K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushil Kumar Biswas seeking self-same relief as was prayed for in C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993.
3. By the letter dated 29th March, 1993 the petitioners in the said writ petitions were informed that the Tea Stall Contract entered by the Railway Administration with the petitioners has expired on 30th September, 1992. It was also indicated that as per the extent Rules the contract may be renewed for the period of five years subject to the petitioners' acceptance and payment of the revised yearly licence fee. The revised licence fee payable by the petitioners individually had also been indicated in the said letter. It was also indicated that such revised licence fee will be effective from 1st October, 1992. By that letter the petitioners were requested to pay the licence fee for one year and the security deposit to the tune of half of the revised yearly licence fee and to attend the office of the Railway Administration by 30th April, 1993 for execution of Tea Stall Agreement afresh for a period of five years. It was also mentioned that if the deposit is not made, it would be presumed that the petitioners are not willing to accept the Tea Stall Contract on revised rate of yearly licence fee and action towards termination of the contract will be initiated without any further reference.
4. It was contended in the said writ petitions that the revised yearly licence fee is exorbitant. It was also contended that there was no rationale in fixing such fee. It was stated that licence fee of Rs. 4364 was enhanced to Rs. 13,500 in one case and in other cases from Rs. 2579 to Rs. 11,500, from Rs. 2184 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 534 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 1499 to Rs. 9,000, from Rs. 825 to Rs. 9,500 and from Rs. 681 to Rs. 1,600.
5. The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993, was moved ex parte on 29th April, 1993 whereas the writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993 was moved ex parte on 30th April, 1993 when interim orders were passed directing the parties to maintain status quo until 30th May, 1993. From the records it does not appear that the said interim orders were extended subsequent thereto. But, however, from an order dated 8th September, 1999 it appears that the interim orders were continued. On 15t March, 2000 both the writ petitions were dismissed for default. Subsequently by an order dated 13th March, 2000 the writ petitions were restored to the file without restoration of the interim orders. Subsequent thereto M/s. S.K. Chatterjee & Sons, M/s. B.P. Chakraborty & Sons and Mr. Apter Hossain Khan paid their outstanding dues on account of licence fees at the new enhanced rate and executed agreement with the Railway Administration. M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons, M/s. T. K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushi Kumar Biswas, however, did not do any such thing. In the premises a decision was taken to evict the said petitioners. That decision is contained in a latter dated 20th May, 2000 of the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur and addressed to the Station Managers of the concerned stations. In those circumstances M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons, M/s. T.K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushil Kumar Biswas filed the writ petition, registered as W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000, whereby and under they challenged the said decision.
It appears from the said decision that it was decide a to takeover the possession of the Tea Stalls of the said petitioners and to keep the same under lock and key till further decision upon taking an inventory of the articles, if any, lying in the Tea Stalls in question.
6. On 7th July, 2000 W.P. No. 7531 (W) o
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
