Dibakar Karan vs Union Of India & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 1562 Cal

   80
02.03.2023
   AK




                     W.P.A. No. 8254 of 2014

                          Dibakar Karan
                                Vs.
                       Union of India & Ors.




               Mr. Syed Julfikar Ali
               Mr. Syed Farhin Zaman
                             ...for the petitioner




                  None appears for the respondents when the

matter is called on for hearing.

Learned counsel for the petitioner cites an

unreported judgment of a co-ordinate Bench dated

March 2, 2017, inter-alia, dismissing the present writ

petition for default (along with others).

In the said order, however, a similar writ petition

was taken up as a test case and the writ petition was

disposed of on merits on the finding that the reason as

to why the abrupt enhancement to the occupation

charges were made had not been given while passing

the order impugned therein.

As such, such enhancement was set aside.

It is seen that in the present case as well, which

was one of the writ petitions dismissed for default

along with the other matters by the said order as

indicated above but restored later, the subject-matter

is identical with the matter which was disposed of on

merit.

Even in the present case, no reason whatsoever

has been provided by the respondent authorities for

the sudden enhancement of the rate of occupation

charges of the petitioner with regard to the stalls

owned by the petitioner on railway property.

In fact, the enhancement effected was to the tune

of Rs. 2,52,775/-, which is palpably exorbitant and

without any rhyme or reason.

In such view of the matter and following the ratio

as laid down in the unreported judgment as cited by

the petitioner, WPA 8254 of 2014 is allowed, thereby

setting aside the impugned notice whereby the rate of

occupation charges of the petitioner was enhanced.

Accordingly, the said demand notice dated October 22,

2013 (annexure-P6 at page-39 of the writ petition)

stands quashed.

However, this order shall not prevent the

respondent authorities from subsequently enhancing

the rate of occupation charges in accordance with law

and upon prior notice to the petitioner.

There will be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat copies of this order, if applied

for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all

requisite formalities.

(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.)