SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2002 Supreme(Cal) 348

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.
Sealdah Cold Storage and Transport Limited & Ors.
vs.
Union of India & Ors.
W.P. No. 16597 (W) of 2001
Decided On : May 20, 2002

Advocates Appeared:
Mihir Lal Bhattacharyya, D.N. Mishra, P.Dudhoria, S. Banerjee for the petitioner;

A licence granted to a licensee who has executed work of a permanent nature and incurred expenses in the execution with the consent and approval of the licensor is irrevocable.

Headnote:

LICENCE - REVOCATION - IRREVOCABLE LICENCE - PUBLIC PREMISES [EVICTION OF UNAUTHORIZED OCCUPANTS] ACT, 1971 - Applicability of Easement Act - Principles of Easement Act - Revocability of Licence.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner, a Public Limited Company, was granted a licence by the Railway Authorities in 1947 to construct a Cold Storage on a plot of land at Sealdah, South Station area. The petitioner constructed a permanent Cold Storage at its own cost in accordance with the sanctioned plan approved by the Railway Authority. The petitioner paid all sums, licence fees, and other taxes as demanded by the Railway Authorities. The Railway Authorities issued a notice to the petitioner in 1976 demanding enhanced licence fees with retrospective effect. The petitioner refused to pay the enhanced fees, and the General Manager, Eastern Railway, cancelled the licence on the ground of non-execution of further lease and non-payment of licence fees. The petitioner made a representation to the Railway Administration, and a settlement was arrived at. The petitioner paid a certain amount of money as licence fees, and the Railway Authorities accepted the same. In 1984, a notice was issued to the petitioner directing it to vacate the land on which the Cold Storage was constructed. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice, and an order was passed restraining the respondent from enforcing the notice. The Railway Authorities issued a notice in 2000 under the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971, directing the petitioner to vacate the land. The petitioner filed another writ petition challenging the notice, and an order was passed quashing the notice. The Railway Authorities issued a notice in 2001 revoking the licence granted to the petitioner on the ground that the plot was urgently required by the Railway for the development of Sealdah Railway Station. The petitioner challenged the notice, contending that the licence was irrevocable.

Finding of the Court:

1. The licence granted to the petitioner in 1947 was irrevocable as the petitioner, acting upon the licence, had executed work of a permanent nature and incurred expenses in the execution with the consent and approval of the licensor. 2. The principles of Easement Act, though not applicable to West Bengal, are applicable in deciding questions regarding the right of easement. 3. The petitioner was a licensee and not a lessee, and the relationship between the petitioner and the Railway Authorities was one of licensee and licensor. 4. The impugned notice revoking the licence without payment of compensation was bad in law and was quashed.

Issues: 1. Whether the licence granted to the petitioner was revocable or not. 2. Whether the principles of Easement Act are applicable to West Bengal. 3. Whether the petitioner was a licensee or a lessee.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Under section 60(b) of the Easement Act, a licence is irrevocable if the licensee, acting upon the licence, has executed work of a permanent nature and incurred expenses in the execution. 2. The principles underlying the Easement Act are applicable in deciding questions regarding the right of easement, even though the Act is not applicable to West Bengal. 3. The distinction between a lease and a licence is that a lease is a transfer of right to the land to enjoy the premises, whereas a licence is merely a privilege to do something on the premises which otherwise would be unlawful.

Final Decision: The impugned notice revoking the licence granted to the petitioner was quashed.

JUDGMENT : -

R.N. Das, Asit Banerjee, Urmila Datta Sen for the respondent.

Asok Kumar Ganguly, J.: The petitioner No.1 is a Public Limited Company having its registered office at 35, Hindusthan Road, Kolkata-700029 and the Cold Storage at Plot No. 22 at Sealdah, South Station area. The petitioner No.2 is the Director and Shareholder of the petitioner No. 1. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner-company was formed on the invitation of the Railway Authorities and the purpose of establishing the petitioner-company was to prevent decomposition of a good portion of the prescribed goods coming by rail such as, fresh meat, milk products, food and vegetables. So by a letter dated 3rd May, 1947 the then General Commercial Manager of Bengal-Assam Railways 1 granted a licence to the petitioner-company for constructing a Cold Storage. The petitioner's further case is after getting the approval of the Railway Authorities, a plan was prepared for construction of a permanent Cold Storage which was duly approved and sanctioned by the Railway Authority and in accordance with the said sanctioned plan, the petitioner-company in 1948 constructed permanent structure for a Cold Storage at its own costs. The petitioner's case is that the Cold Storage of the petitioner-company is unique and there is no other Cold Storage like the one of petitioner-company within the network of the Eastern Railway. The petitioner's further case is that as a result of the functioning of the said Cold Storage various commodities like fish, yeast, sweets, milk curd, honey and apple juice are not only stored but they are also distributed and sent to Railways from the said Cold Storage to various districts. According to the petitioner-company the said Cold Storage is functioning in public interest and caters to the needs of public at large. The petitioner's case is that it is not disputed that the petitioner-company has been duly paying all sums and the licence fees and other taxes as and when demanded by the Rail, way Authorities and initially the Railway Authorities gave to the Cold Storage licence for five years commencing from 1st August, 1947 and the same was renewed from time to time. Thereafter, on 27th August, 1976 the Divisional Subordinate Manager demanded from the petitioner-company enhanced fees in respect of the said Cold Storage with retrospective effect from 1963-64. As the petitioner-company refused to pay the said enhanced licence fees the General Manager Estern Railway by a letter dated 25th September, 1977 allegedly cancelled the licence granted to the petitioner-company on the purported ground for non-execution of further lease and non-payment of licence fees. Against such cancellation, the petitioner-company made a representation to the Railway Administration and thereafter a joint meeting was held on 10th October, 1981 between the representative of the General Manager and the petitioner company and a settlement was arrived at. Pursuant to the settlement, the General Manager, Eastern Railway demanded from the petitioner-company a certain amount of money by way of licence fees and the same was paid by the petitioner-company. Again on 22nd November, 1984 a notice was issued to the petitioner-company directing the petitioner to vacate the land on which the Cold Storage of the petitioner was constructed. The said notice was issued purportedly under the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971 [hereinafter referred to as the said Act] and by the said notice the respondent demanded from the petitioner a sum of Rs. l,29,404.50p. towards further licence fees. Again the petitioner made a representation to the Railway authorities against the said notice issued on 22nd November, 1984. But as nothing happened, the petitioner company filed a writ petition which was numbered Civil Order (C.O.) No. 3229(W) of 1985 for cancellation of the notice dated 22nd November, 1984 and an order was passed by Hon'ble Court on 27th November, 1985 to r


















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top