The main legal point established in the judgment is that unless an order passed by a lower court is challenged and quashed, there is no basis for seeking a command to restrain a particular action.

JUDGMENT :

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India whereby and whereunder following prayer has been made :-

“To issue appropriate writ, order or direction restraining the respondents from enhancing the rate of rent/license fee any further.”

2. It appears from the writ petition, wherein statement has been made at paragraph 5 thereof that against the enhancement of the license fee, a miscellaneous appeal was filed before the District Judge, Ranchi being Miscellaneous Appeal No.15 of 2004 but the same was dismissed vide judgment dated 12.09.2006.

3. Mr. Ray Rajat Nath, learned counsel appearing for the Ranchi Municipal Corporation, has submitted by referring to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Ranchi Municipal Corporation dated 09.05.2022 wherein the stand about dismissal of the miscellaneous appeal, being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004, has been taken. He submits that since against the enhancement the miscellaneous appeal has already been dismissed but the said order has not been assailed by the writ petitioner and without assailing the same, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking direction by issuance of command upon the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for issuance of restrainment order in enhancement of the license fee, which according to him, is not permissible as because so long as the order passed by the District Judge in Miscellaneous appeal No.15 of 2004 is in operation and unless it will be quashed by issuing writ of certiorari, there cannot be any order by issuing mandamus on the concerned authority.

4. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the averments made in the affidavits as also the documents appended to the writ petition.

5. This Court, after going through the affidavits filed on behalf of the parties, has found that the fact about raising of the issue of enhancement of license fee before the District Judge, Ranchi by way of filing miscellaneous appeal being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004 is not in dispute. However, prayer has been made in the writ petition by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of command upon the Ranchi Municipal Corporation for restrainment order for enhancement of the license fee since the issue of enhancement of license fee, although for one year, has been agitated by the writ petitioners by filing appeal before the District Judge, Ranchi, being Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004, which has already been dismissed but the said order has not been challenged. Therefore, unless the order passed by the District Judge, Ranchi dated 12.09.2006 in Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004 is quashed, there is no question of issuance of any command, as has been sought for by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. However, submission has been made by Mr. A.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners, that since the order passed by the District Judge, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004 is only for one year in this case, therefore, the said dismissal will not operate adverse to the interest of the writ petitioners. The license fee for the subsequent year which has been enhanced has been questioned in this writ petition.

7. But this Court is not impressed with such argument, reason being that when the initial enhancement of the license fee itself has been accepted without assailing the order passed by the District Judge in Misc. Appeal No.15 of 2004, there is no question of issuance of general direction restraining the Ranchi Municipal Corporation not to enhance the license fee for the subsequent years.

8. Accordingly and in view of the discussions made hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the instant writ petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed.

9. Consequently, I.A. No.4489 of 2020 (stay petition) also stands disposed of.