Punjab National Bank Having Its ... vs Divisional Railway Manager
2022 Latest Caselaw 4446 Jhar

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                  C.M.P. No. 429 of 2022

         Punjab National Bank having its branch office at Dhanbad Railway Station
         Branch, Dhanbad.                                     .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
         1.Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad.
         2.Senior Divisional Engineer (Estate) and Estate Officer,
         East Central Railway, Dhanbad                         .. ... ...Opp. Party(s)
                        ...........

CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY .........

         For the Petitioner(s) :          Mr. Sumit Prakash, Advocate
         For the Opp. Party(s) :           Ms. Neeta Krishna, Advocate
                        ......

03/ 07.11.2022. The instant CMP has been filed for setting aside the judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Dhanbad, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.59 of 2021 whereby and whereunder the appeal of the petitioner Under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 has been dismissed confirming the order dated 15.11.2021 passed by the Estate Officer, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad, directing eviction of the petitioner -Bank from thee Dhanbad Railway Station.

It is submitted that the order of eviction has been challenged basically on the ground that the petitioner-Bank had an extension counter at the premises of Railway Station, Dhanbad to serve Railway employees since 06.02.2001 and on a specific request received vide letter dated 08.09.2008 from the Sr. Divisional Finance Manager, East Central Railway, the permission for upgradation of the extension counter of the Bank to full-fledged Branch was permitted.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that although there was no agreement of lease or licence, but in view of the permission for upgradation, the same amounted to implicit agreement, permitting the petitioner-Bank to operate from the premises of the Railways.

It is further submitted that the Railway-authorities for the first time demanded an outstanding license fee of Rs.38,43,501/- for the period from 06.02.2001 to 2018-19 without any agreement to the effect. The petitioner- Bank offered the Railways to provide a larger space so that a formal lease or agreement could be entered, but the same was not allowed and order for eviction of the premises has been passed as an ex-parte vide order dated 15.11.2021 by the Estate Officer, E.C. Railway, Dhanbad.

This order was impugned before the learned court below which has been dismissed on the ground that in absence of any lease or agreement, the occupation of the Bank in the Railway premises was unauthorised.

Learned counsel for the Railways while opposing the prayer has submitted that without any formal agreement of lease of licence, the petitioner- Bank cannot seek to remain in the said premises of the Railways for an indefinite period of time.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the materials available on record, I do not find any merit in the instant CMP.

Accordingly, the instant CMP being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

(Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.) Sandeep/