JUDGMENT :

(T.S. Sivagnanam, C.J.)

1. We have heard Mr. Kishore Dutta, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the Union of India/respondent.

2. The present appeal is directed against an order passed by the learned single Bench dismissing a writ petition filed by the appellant challenging a notice issued by the railway administration dated 13th September, 2019. By the said notice, M/s. R. S. Mondal was informed that the occupational fee or in other words, the license fee of Rs.4,000/-per annum has not been paid since the year 2000. Further there was an allegation that M/s. R. S. Mondal has resorted to duplicious means to willfully avoid compliance of the order passed by the learned single Bench of this Court and sent cheques to fictitious payees, which could not be encashed by the railways and were sent back to M/s. R. S. Mondal with proper guidelines to make successful payment. Thereafter, also M/s. R. S. Mondal has adopted various dubious methods and continued to send cheques addressed to fictitious payments. Hence, since 1992/2000 neither the Indian Railways has earned a single rupee of revenue from M/s. R. S. Mondal nor have paid any service tax and later the G.S.T. while it continued to run the business of vending of food articles and earned substantial income at the cost of public exchequer. Further, it was pointed out that unavailability of food license for a catering unit is extremely dangerous and a serious cause of health hazard for travelling public as unavailability of medical fitness certificate of the staff handling the food. Thus, after considering these facts, the competent authority temporarily sealed the catering unit with effect from 16th September, 2019 for the safety of travelling public till M/s. R. S. Mondal rectifies all the deficiencies and clear the railway outstanding, as directed by this Court in an earlier writ petition.

3. Before the learned single Bench, the appellant had placed extensive reliance on the order passed by the learned single Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7531 (W) of 2000, firstly, on the interim order dated 7th July, 2000 and in the final judgment and order dated 29th June, 2001. It is, thereafter another eviction notice was passed on 14th November, 2003, wherein it was mentioned that a sum of Rs.2,20,885/-is the arrears of the license fee. Subsequently, another writ petition was filed in which the interim order, which was sought for was refused and the appellant was unsuccessful in his attempt to set aside the order before the Hon’ble Division Bench as the appeal stood dismissed. However, at that stage, when the appeal was heard by the Hon’ble Division Bench in M.A.T. 1475 of 2019, the appellant withdrew the writ petition with liberty to challenge afresh notice dated 4th July, 2011, which was challenged in the writ petition, which has culminated in the impugned order.

4. The argument of the learned senior advocate is largely based upon the earlier order passed in the appellant’s case, wherein there was a reference by the learned single Bench to the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. Firstly, we need to see as to whether the provisions of the 1971 Act would apply. Section 2 (1)(e) of the Act defines “public premises” to mean any premises belonging to, or taken on lease or requisitioned by, or on behalf of the Central Government, and includes any such premises which have been placed by that Government, whether before or after the commencement of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Amendment Act, 1980 (61 of 1980), under the control of the Secretariat of either House of Parliament for providing residential accommodation to any member of the staff of that Secretariat. Section (2)( e)(2) states that any premises belonging to, or taken on lease by, or on behalf of (i) any company as defined in Section 3 of the COMPANIES ACT , 2013, any university established or incorpora