Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 13 March, 2023
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010043662023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/90/2023
K U UMESH AND 6 ORS.
S/O- LATE K.N. UNNI, RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION, DIST- SONITPUR,
ASSAM, PIN- 784505
2: BINDESHWAR YADAV
SON OF GUNESHWAR YADAV
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784505.
3: BHOLA YADAV
S/O LATE DEVNANDAN YADAV
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784505.
4: DEEPAK SAH
SON OF NIRDHAN SAH
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784505.
5: OM PRAKASH SAH
SON OF LATE RAM AYODHYA SAH
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784505.
6: VINOD KUMAR PANDEY
SON OF SRI R.S. PANDEY
Page No.# 2/5
WARD NO. 2
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM, PIN- 784505.
7: BIMAL GHOSH
RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 4
RANGAPARA
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM, PIN- 784505
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS.
REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF
RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI- 110001.
2:GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11.
3:INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.
NEW DELHI
INDIA. REPRESENTED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
REGIONAL OFFICE 4-D
MANDOVI APARTMENT
AMBARI
G.N.B. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781001.
4:THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR
INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.
NEW DELHI
INDIA
REGIONAL OFFICE 4-D MANDOVI APARTMENT
AMBARI
G.N.B. ROAD, GUWAHATI- 781001.
5:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (C)
N.F. RAILWAY
RANGIA DIVISION
RANGIA
DIST- KAMRUP, ASSAM.
6:THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-11
DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
Page No.# 3/5
7:THE DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
RANGIA DIVISION
RANGIA
DIST.- KAMRUP
ASSAM.
8:SUSHIL KUMAR SAH
S/O- LATE RAGHU NATH SAH
RESIDENT OF WARD NO. 2
RANGAPARA RAILWAY STATION
DIST- SONITPUR
ASSAM
PIN- 784505
For the appellants : Mr. S. Banik, Advocate
For respondent Nos.1, 2, 5,
6&7 : Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury,
Deputy Solicitor General of India
For respondent Nos.3 & 4 : Mr. G.N. Sahewalla,
Senior Advocate
Mr. N. Anix Singh, Advocate
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARDAK ETE
13-03-2023
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Mr. S. Banik, learned counsel representing the appellants submits that the
controversy raised in this appeal stands covered by the order dated 10.03.2023,
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA 87/2023 and, thus, this writ
appeal may also be decided in the light of the aforesaid order.
Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, and Mr. G. N.
Sahewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 and 4 do not
oppose the submission of Mr. Banik.
Page No.# 4/5
The above-referred WA 87/2023 was preferred by the appellants against an order
dated 23.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Bench in WP(C) 7339/2018. WA
87/2023 was disposed of by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the following terms:
"8. Although Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI raises an objection
to such submission of Mr. D Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the
appellants, but on principle we see no reason as to why the said
submission should not be accepted in law. We take note of a particular
factual aspect that although the licenses of the appellants may not have
been renewed or extended, but the respondents in the railway authorities
continued to accept the vending fees at the existing rate on regular basis
without raising any objection meaning thereby that the appellants
continued with their vending business with the full knowledge of the
respondent authorities inasmuch as, the vending fees at the existing rate
were accepted from time to time as required.
9. Mr. RKD Choudhury, learned Deputy SGI states that although the said
acceptance was with the complete knowledge of the respondent
authorities in the railways, but it was done pursuant to the interim orders
of the Court.
10. We are unable to accept the said submission for the reason that all
that the interim orders provided was that as long as the appellants are
required to pay the vend fees, they would be paying it in the interim at
the existing rate, but the interim order did not preclude the respondent
authorities in any manner to act upon their discretion not to extend the
licenses and also not to accept the vend fees. All that the interim order
provided was that the vend fees should be accepted at the existing rate
and not at the enhanced rate. Although a stand was taken in the affidavit
by the respondent railway authorities that because of the pendency of the
Court proceeding the licenses could not be renewed or extended, but the
said stand would also be unacceptable inasmuch as, there was no
restrain order in any manner from the Court during the proceeding
disentitling the respondent authorities from extending the licenses.
11. Be that as it may, the factual aspect that remains is that the
appellants continued to pay the vend fees at the existing rate and the
respondent authorities continued to accept the same leading to an
equitable situation of there being an implied extension of the licenses, as
no pro active measure was taken not to allow the appellants to continue
with the vending business.
12. Another aspect of dismissal of the WP(C) No. 7339/2018 and other
writ petitions would be that all the appellants would now be required to
pay their vend fees at the enhanced rate.
13. Mr. D Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the appellants candidly
makes a categorical statement that all the appellants are agreeable to
Page No.# 5/5
pay the vend fees at the enhanced rate for the entire period and for the
purpose are ready and agreeable to pay the difference between enhanced
rate and the existing rate which they have already paid.
14. If the appellants pay all the arrear amounts at the enhanced rate
being the difference between the enhanced rate and the existing rate, the
situation as of today would be as if the appellants had never approached
the Court, there was no interim order and they have readily agreed to pay
the respondents the entire dues at the enhanced rate and they have
actually paid it. If that is the situation, we now leave it to the respondent
authorities in the respondent railways to take their decision as to what
they would have done had the appellants paid the vend fee for the entire
period at the enhanced rate without raising any dispute and accordingly
we also leave it at their discretion to do the needful as they would have
done otherwise.
15. In doing so, the appellants be also given an opportunity of hearing to
arrive at any effective reasoned decision between the parties. Till any
such reasoned decision is arrived at, the appellants be allowed to
continue with the vending business, but with a clarification that the
payments of the vend fees would be at the applicable enhanced rate for
the interim period.
16. All other terms of the judgment and order dated 23.01.2023 in WP(C)
No. 7339/2018 shall remain as it is provided therein, except for the
modification/clarification as indicated above.
The writ appeal stands partly allowed as indicated above."
In view of the above submissions noted hereinabove, without recording separate
reasons this writ appeal is partly allowed in the light of the order dated 10.03.2023
passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in WA 87/2023 but with the
modifications as indicated in the judgment and order dated 23.01.2023 passed by the
learned Single Bench in WP(C) 7339/2018.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
