Jharkhand High Court
Gurdip Singh vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 21 August, 2023
1 L.P.A No.171 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
L.P.A No. 171 of 2022
Gurdip Singh, aged about 60 years, son of late Trilok Singh, resident of
Gurunanak Para, PO &PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway
Bhawan, New Delhi
2. East Central Railways, Administration, Dhanbad through Divisional
Railway Manager, Dhanbad, PO and PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
3. Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Central Railways, Dhanbad
Division, Dhanbad, PO and PS Dhanbad, District Dhanbad
.....Respondent/Respondents
--------------
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
For the Appellant : Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate
Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, CGC
---------------
Order No.05/Dated:21st August 2023
Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment dated 21st
March 2022 passed in WP(C) No. 7281 of 2006 whereby the writ
petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed for quashing the letter dated 11th
September 2006 whereby the license of Stall No.24 which was
allotted to the appellant in the year 1992 has been cancelled. Further
prayer was made for quashing the demand dated 22nd August 2006
for Rs. 3,08,585/- based on 10% increase in fixed rent/license fee for
Stall No. 24 and a prayer was also made to quash the revised bill
dated 11th August 2006 of Railway Shopping Centre, Station Road,
Dhanbad.
Submissions of the appellant.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant on
instructions has submitted that the appellant remained in possession
of the aforesaid shop till March 2023 and has now been removed
from the shop. He has submitted that the appellant is ready to pay the
dues which remained unpaid by the appellant and the license to the
aforesaid shop be continued.
4. With regards to the remaining dues, the learned counsel has
referred to page no. 86 of the Memorandum of Appeal to submit that
on 22nd August 2006 a letter was issued to the appellant mentioning
that dues to the extent of Rs.3,08,589/- was communicated against
the license fee for the period upto 31st March 2007. The learned
counsel has submitted that the respondents have filed a counter-
affidavit annexing therewith a chart showing the dues of license fee
from time to time and also the amount deposited by the appellant
from time to time. He submits that on 1st April 2007 the chart shows
a deposit of Rs. 3,08,589/-. The learned counsel submits that on 1st
April 2007 the said amount as mentioned in the letter dated 22 nd
August 2006 with respect to dues till 1st April 2007 has been shown
to have been deposited and he is ready to deposit the further amount
which fell due after 1st April 2007 subject to adjustment of the
amount already paid by the appellant from time to time as is
reflecting in the aforesaid chart filed by the respondents. The chart at
page no. 149 of Memo of Appeal is reproduced as under for the
ready reference:
Shop license calculation sheet for stall no. 24, licensee-Sri Gurudeep Singh
5. It is not in dispute that the appellant had entered into an
agreement with South Eastern Railway Administration in the year
1992 with respect to the aforesaid which was allotted to him on fixed
rent/license fee. The rent/license fee was subsequently enhanced
vide circular issued in the year 29th August 1995 and the
retrospective effect of this circular for the period 1st
April 1986 to 31st March 1995 was withdrawn vide circular dated
24th March 2004.
6. The learned writ Court while dismissing the writ petition has
taken note of the terms and conditions of the license and was of the
view that as per paragraph no.10 of the agreement the license or
occupation fee provided for the license agreement could may, by
notice in that behalf, be enhanced by the Administration from time to
time at its sole discretion and the licensee was liable to pay the
enhanced license or occupation fee on the expiry of the period as
may be prescribed in such notice. It has also been held by the learned
writ Court that the agreement was binding upon the appellant and the
appellant was supposed to comply with all the conditions of Railway
Administration with regard to enhancement of rent. The learned writ
Court found that the appellant had not complied with the aforesaid
condition of license and consequently the writ petition was
dismissed.
7. The learned counsel submits that the aforesaid chart shows the
dues only till 1st April 2019 and as of now the appellant is ready to
pay the upto date dues. He submits that the appellant being a poor
person and has been ousted from the shop, he is ready to make
payment in installments which is permissible as per the circular
issued by the respondents dated 10th February 2005 for the purposes
of settlement of pending cases.
Submissions of the Respondents.
8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has
submitted that till March 2023 the total dues payable by the
appellant comes to Rs. 22,62,013/- and this amount also includes the
liquidated damages which is payable by the appellant as per the
agreement read with the circulars issued by the Railways. The
learned counsel submits that in case the appellant is ready to pay the
dues, the shop involved in this case can be reallocated to the
appellant and his earlier agreement can be renewed. She submits that
she has taken specific instructions from the respondents in this
behalf.
Findings of this Court.
9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going to
the facts and circumstances of this case and on account of the
developments which have taken place during pendency of the writ
petition and having regard to the aforesaid submissions by the
learned counsels for the parties made on instructions, this Court is
inclined to dispose of the appeal by making following observations
and directions: -
I. From the chart produced by the respondents at page no. 149 of
this Memo of Appeal read with the letter dated 22nd August
2006 as contained in running page no. 86 of this Memo of
Appeal it is apparent that the letter dated 22nd August 2006 was
issued to the appellant quantifying the dues till 31 st March 2007
as Rs.3,08,589/- only and the aforesaid chart reflects that on 1st
April 2007 the said amount was deposited by the appellant.
Consequently, the dues as projected in the letter dated 22nd
August 2006 was already deposited on 1st April 2007 and
whatever remains is the amount post 1st April 2007.
II. The licence fee and payment made after 1st April 2007 as per
the chart are as under:-
Date Period License fee Deposited by
Party
01.04.2007 2007 - 2008 57,513 3,08,589
01.04.2008 2008 - 2009 61,539
01.04.2009 2009 - 2010 65,847
01.04.2010 2010 - 2011 70,456 50,000
01.04.2011 2011 - 2012 75,388 65,000
01.04.2012 2012 - 2013 80,665 1,19,000
01.04.2013 2013 - 2014 86,312 1,48,000
01.04.2014 2014 - 2015 92,354 50,000
01.04.2015 2015 - 2016 98,819 70,000
01.04.2016 2016 - 2017 1,05,736 1,50,000
01.04.2017 2017 - 2018 1,13,138
01.07.2018 2018 - 2019 1,21,058
01.04.2019 2019 - 2020 ₹ 1,29,532.00 1,00,000
III. The chart reflects the status only up to 1st April 2019 and the
appellant is ready to clear upto date dues after adjustment of the
amount already paid and reflected in the chart post 1st April
2007 but in installment which is permissible as per the circular
issued by the Railways.
10. The appellant shall clear the remaining dues post 1st April 2007
with liquidated damages as applicable, in equal yearly installments
spread over the period of four years coupled with the current
payment of the licence fee upon renewal of the licence and handing
over the shop back to the appellant.
11. The amount payable by the appellant will be in terms of the
licence fee mentioned in the chart from time to time after adjustment
of the payment already made by the appellant. The total payment
made by the appellant post 1st April 2007 as per the chart comes to
Rs.6,62,000/-. Thereafter, the balance amount shall be paid in
installments for each year to be communicated to the appellant by
the respondent no.3 within a period of 15 days from the date of
communication of this order. Upon making payment of the first
yearly installment along with the current licence fee, renewal of the
agreement/licence shall be done and the appellant would continue to
pay the current licence fee from time to time.
12. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the
impugned order of the learned writ Court is set aside.
13. LPA No. 171 of 2022 is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
14. Pending I.A, if any, is closed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated : 21st August 2023
Tanuj / N.A.F.R.
