Ram Dour Barui @ Ram Deo Barui And ... vs Union Of India And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 741 Cal

22.02.2022 Court No.13 Item No.5 AP WPA 2938 of 2022

Ram Dour Barui @ Ram Deo Barui and Ors.

Vs.

Union of India and Ors.

(Through Video Conference)

Ms. Sulagna Bagchi (Bhattacharya) ... For the Petitioners.

Mr. Amitesh Banerjee Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar ... For the IRCTC.

The writ petitioners are all running vending units

commonly known as 'Dallas' at the Sealdah Railway Station

of the Eastern Railway. The writ petitioners were continuing

as such for some period of time.

The writ petitioners were required to pay licence fees

for occupying and using said Dallas. The writ petitioners

initially claimed the right of renewal of their vending units.

Under the catering policy of the year 2010, the writ

petitioners may have had the right of such renewal.

However, the said policy of the year 2010 has been

replaced by the policy of the year 2017. Under the new

policy, there is no provision for renewal of any Dallas or

vending units. However, as a one-time measure and as a

sympathetic gesture, the writ petitioners were allowed to

continue and renew their licence to operate Dallas upon

payment of certain fees.

The fees demanded by a communication dated 27th

January 2022 is in the region of Rs.3,29,721/- per annum,

payable from the year 2017. Together with arrears a total

sum of Rs.11,00,336/- was found due and payable by the

writ petitioners as licence fees and occupation charges and

GST from 27th February 2017 till 26th February 2020.

The writ petitioners submit that the said amount is

excessive and exorbitant. It is submitted that the writ

petitioners who are vendors of small toys, chocolates and

biscuits in railway stations cannot afford to pay the said

sum of money.

It appears from the submissions of the railways that

since after the implementation of the policy of 2017, and

tenders were received. The minimum bid received for one

Dalla at the Howrah Station was a sum of Rs.22,00,000/- ,

and the highest bid went upto Rs.54,00,000/-.

By reason thereof, it is explicit and clear that there

is a huge amount of income that is generated out of the

operations of these Dallas and the writ petitioners cannot

feign poverty.

The writ petitioners also cannot claim any benefit

under the non-existent 2010 policy. Hence, applying the

dictam of Supreme Court in the case of Senior Divisional

Commercial Manger & Ors. Vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry

Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association & Anr.

reported in AIR 2016 SC 668 and a Division Bench

decision of this Court in the case of Bindu Devi Vs.

General Manger, Eastern Railways & Ors. being MAT

603 of 2017 and judgment dated 3rd May 2017, this

Court is of the view that the grievances of the writ

petitioners cannot be entertained. The railways cannot be

faulted for having developed the tariff, which is based on

lawful considerations and prepared by the Senior

Administrative Grade (SAG) committee.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition must

fail and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order

duly downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Rajasekhar Mantha, J.)