2023 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 10099
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18834 of 2021 ======================================================
M/s P.K. Caterers through its Proprietor Praveen Kumar, aged about 54 years, (Male), Son of Late Vijay Kunwar Poddar, Resident of Safullaganj, Opposite Poor Home, P.S.- Town, Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Railway Board, Ministry of Railway through the Executive Director, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
3. The Principal Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.
4. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s ======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ramadhar Shekhar ( Addl. S. C. Railway)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA)
Date : 09-01-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways.
The present writ application has been filed seeking quashing of the letter Dated 20.09.2021 (Annexure-4 series)
issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur whereby the petitioner has been intimated that the license fee of catering stalls, held by him at Samastipur, Darbhanga, Madhubani and Sitamarhi Railway Stations (total of 8 stalls) have been revised and fixed with effect from 01.05.2017 and the differential amount of license fee, GST and Service Tax which comes to Rs. 31,04,0790/- indicated in the impugned letter has been directed to be deposited. Further prayer in the writ petition is for quashing all the consequential letters issued by the Railway Administration in this regard. A mandamus therefore has been sought by the petitioner against the Railways to grant him the benefit of exemption/reduction/revision of license fee as directed by the Railway Board vide letter dated 01.06.2020 (Annexure-6) in view of Covid-19 Pandemic and also for holding that action of the concerned respondents in fixation of revised license fee with retrospective effect and in an arbitrary manner is illegal.
The learned counsel submits that in pursuance of an open tender issued in the year 2009-2010 inviting bids for catering stalls at Railway Platforms of Samastipur, Darbangha, Madhubani and Sitamarhi Railway Station, the petitioner had participated in the bid process and had qualified as a successful bidder, being a proprietor of a firm. Thereafter, an agreement between the petitioner and the I.R.C.T.C. was executed which came into force w.e.f. 1st July, 2010 for a period of 5 years (Annexure-1).
The petitioner thereafter was awarded license to run 8 stalls on the aforesaid railway stations platforms vide letters dated 16.07.2009, 25.02.2010 and 13.07.2010 respectively (Annexure-2 series).
A New Catering Policy, 2010 came into effect, (Annexure R/1 to the counter afÏdavit) in pursuance whereof, the catering stalls were handed over by the IRCTC to Indian Railways. Thus, a subsidiary agreement was entered between the Railways and the petitioner in May 2018 (Annexure-3) for the petitioner to work as a vending contract or at the aforesaid railway station platforms under the said agreement, which remained operative from 21.01.2018 to 30.06.2018, the petitioner paid the licence fee as per the terms of the agreement.
By the impugned letter dated 20.09.2021, issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Samastipur, it was intimated to the petitioner that the license of the catering stall held by the petitioner on aforesaid railway station platforms have been revised with effect from 01.05.2017 (Railway Administration claims the remission in rates from 01.11.2018 though) and the differential amount of license fee, G.S.T and Service Tax would stand computed at Rs. 31,04,079/-.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the impugned letters on the ground of non observance of the provisions contained in Clause 18(3) of the catering policy of 2010.
The major thrust of challenge to the aforesaid impugned letters contained in Annexure-4 series is the non- implementation and non-observance of the provisions contained in Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010.
Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010 reads as hereunder:-
“18.3 At the time of renewal of license, license fee should be enhanced / reassessed based on actual sales turnover of the unit. License fee will be reassessed and revived to a minimum of 10 % increased over the prevailing license fee of the unit. To arrive at a realistic figure, zonal railways will ensure that a fresh assessment of sales turnover/revenue is conducted during the peak period and lean period i.e. with the periodicity of three-three months in order to assess the actual sales turnover so as to fix the revived licensee