Patna High Court
Rakesh Kumar vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 10 May, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17632 of 2021
======================================================
1. Rakesh Kumar Son of Govind Prasad Sah Resident of Village Dunmawaliya,
Ward No. 10, Police Station - Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
2. Jitendra Prasad Son of Lathuni Sah Resident of Village - Malkauli, Police
Station - Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
3. Dhanraj Sharma Son of Muni Sharma Resident of Village - Bagaha, Police
Station- Bagaha, District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Department of Railway, New
Delhi.
2. The General Manager, East Central Railway, New Delhi.
3. The Assistant Divisional Manager, East Central Railway, Narkatiyaganj.
4. The Divisional Manager, Rail Engineering, East Central Railway,
Samastipur.
5. The Senior Section Engineer (Works) Narkatiyaganj.
6. The Station Master, Bagaha Railway Station, Narkatiyaganj, West
Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Suresh Prasad Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Senior CGC
Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, CGC
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA)
Date: 10-05-2022
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing
the notices issued to the petitioners by the authorities of the East
Central Railway, whereby and whereunder the license fee,
pertaining to the shops of the petitioners in question, has been
revised with retrospective effect i.e. with effect from 01.04.1995
Patna High Court CWJC No.17632 of 2021 dt.10-05-2022
to 31.03.2020 and a huge demand has been made with a further
stipulation that in the event of default in depositing the same,
the license of the shops of the petitioners would be cancelled.
The learned counsel for the parties at the outset point
out that similar matters have already been disposed off by
coordinate Benches of this Court vide order dated 04.11.2019
passed in CWJC No. 18109 of 2018 (Vijay Sah vs. The Union
of India & ors.) and vide order dated 06.11.2020 passed in
CWJC No. 8604 of 2020 and other analogous cases. It is
submitted that the aforesaid writ petitions be also disposed off in
terms of the said orders passed by the coordinate Benches of
this Court in the case of Vijay Sah etc.
At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce
relevant portion of the order dated 04.11.2019 passed in the case
of Vijay Sah (supra) herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
the Railways.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondents-Railways.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that he is not required to file any rejoinder thereto
and the matter may be heard and disposed off on
the basis of materials available on the record.
After hearing learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the Railways
and upon perusal of the statements made in the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17632 of 2021 dt.10-05-2022
counter affidavit, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the petitioner has submitted a copy
of representation as contained in Annexure '4' to
the writ application to the General Manager, East
Central Railway, Hajipur, Vaishali who will look into
the grievance of the petitioner, shall examine all
these issues raised by him and shall take an
appropriate decision with an intention to amicably
resolve the dispute in terms of the agreement. In
case the dispute cannot be resolved amicably, the
parties may invoke the relevant provision of the
agreement which talks of resolution of dispute
through arbitration. In this regard it has been
submitted that although in Clause 24, the General
Manager, East Central Railway has been named as
*fookpd*(Arbiter), now in view of the amendment of
the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, he
cannot act as Arbitrator. At this stage,this Court
would only observe that in case the parties have,
in terms of Clause 24, decided to get the matter
resolved through arbitral process, it will be open
for them to agree on the mode of appointment of
the Arbitrator if occasion so arises. Till a decision
is taken by the General Manager, East Central
Zone, Hajipur on the representation of the
petitioner, no coercive action shall betaken
against him to forcibly evict from the premises.
The writ application stands disposed off."
With the express agreement and consent of the learned
counsel for the parties, the present writ petitions are also
disposed off in terms of the aforesaid order dated 04.11.2019
passed in the case of Vijay Sah (supra), however, it is directed
Patna High Court CWJC No.17632 of 2021 dt.10-05-2022
that till final award is rendered by the Arbitrator, no coercive
action shall be taken against the petitioners including that of
eviction and realisation of the arrears of license fee from the
petitioners, however, the petitioners would continue to pay the
license fee as per the pre-existing rate.
(Rajan Gupta, J)
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR N/A
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 17.05.2022
Transmission Date
