Gurdip Singh, aged about 60 years, son of late Trilok Singh, resident of Gurunanak v. 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Railway Bhawan, New Delhi 2
Case Details
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
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Rohitashya Roy, Advocate For the Respondents Mr. Vibhor Mayank, Advocate : Mrs. Bakshi Vibha, CGC --------------- Per, Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. Order No.05/Dated:21st August 2023 1. 2. 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. 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 2 L.P.A No.171 of 2022 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 22nd 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 3 L.P.A No.171 of 2022 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 4 L.P.A No.171 of 2022 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 31st 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 01.04.2007 01.04.2008 01.04.2009 01.04.2010 01.04.2011 01.04.2012 01.04.2013 01.04.2014 01.04.2015 01.04.2016 01.04.2017 01.07.2018 01.04.2019 2007 – 2008 2008 – 2009 2009 – 2010 2010 – 2011 2011 – 2012 2012 – 2013 2013 – 2014 2014 – 2015 2015 – 2016 2016 – 2017 2017 – 2018 2018 – 2019 2019 – 2020 57,513 61,539 65,847 70,456 75,388 80,665 86,312 92,354 98,819 1,05,736 1,13,138 1,21,058 ₹ 1,29,532.00 Deposited by Party 3,08,589 50,000 65,000 1,19,000 1,48,000 50,000 70,000 1,50,000 1,00,000 5 L.P.A No.171 of 2022 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 10. issued by the Railways. 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. In view of the aforesaid observations and directions, the impugned order of the learned writ Court is set aside. LPA No. 171 of 2022 is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Pending I.A, if any, is closed. 12. 13. 14. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.) (Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated : 21st August 2023 Tanuj / N.A.F.R.