Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pundeo Singh & Ors vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 September, 2016
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
PRESENT:
The Hon'ble Justice Subrata Talukdar
W.P. 6034 (W) of 2005
with
W.P. 20340 (W) of 2004
with
W.P. 20341(W) of 2004
with
W.P. 15769 (W) of 1998
with
W.P. 3996 (W) of 1999
with
W.P. 14291 (W) of 2004
with
W.P. 20147 (W) of 2004
Pundeo Singh & Ors.
-Vs.-
Union of India & Ors .
For the Petitioners : Mr. Subroto Bose
Ms. Nabanita Pal
Mr. Sandipto Bose
For the Eastern Railway in
WP 15769(W) of 1988 &
WP 3996(W) of 1999 : Mr. Moloy Kumar Das
Mr. Anirban Dutta
For the Easter Railway in
WP 14291(W) of 2004 &
WP 20147(W) of 2004 : Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh
For the Railway Board in
WP 6034(W) of 2005,
WP 20340(W) of 2004 &
WP 20341(W) of 2004 : Mr. Krishna Das Poddar
Heard on : 05/04/2016
Judgment on : 21/09/2016
SUBRATA TALUKDAR, J.: These writ petitions raise common points
of facts and law and, are therefore being decided by this common
judgment and order.
At the very outset it is relevant to mention that each of the writ
petitioners is a plot holder under the Railways, particularly Eastern
Railway at Ballygunge Railway Siding (hereinafter referred to for short
as the plot holders or the said plots or only the plots). The plot holders
claim to be in occupation of their respective plots on the basis of
licences granted in their favour by the Railways on the terms and
conditions stated therein.
Sri Subrata Bose, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the plot
holders argues that the Railways have renewed the licences of the writ
petitioners each year and, have continued to regularly accept the licence
fees. The plot holders claim to be in possession of the receipts granted
by the Railways in respect of such licence fees.
Sri Bose submits that up to the year 1996-97 the Railways
regularly demanded licence fees fixed at the old rates and such licence
fees were faithfully paid by the plot holders. However, by a purported
Memo dated 21st January, 1997 the Railways informed the plot holders
that the licence fees have been enhanced by 10% annually
retrospectively with effect from 1986. Such 10% enhancement, Sri Bose
strongly argues, is exorbitant, arbitrary and, cannot be under any
circumstances imposed retrospectively.
It is the further submission of Sri Bose that the Memo dated 21st
January, 1997 fails to disclose any reason or any policy behind
enhancement of the licence fees. Similarly, no enhancement of licence
fees related to enhancement of land value can be discerned from the
Memo dated 21st January, 1997.
Aggrieved by the terms of the Memo dated 21st of January, 1997,
the plot holders through their Association challenged the same by way
of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
registered as WP 15769(W) of 1998. By orders dated 31st of August,
1998 and 22nd of September, 1998 an Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased
to, inter alia, direct that each of the petitioners shall pay double the
amount which has been paid for the period 1995-96 and, such payment
must be made by 17th of October, 1998. The Hon'ble Single Bench was
further pleased to clarify that in the event the payment is made within
the date fixed as directed, the Railways shall not enforce the enhanced
liability.
Sri Bose submits that each of the plot holders associated with WP
15769(W) of 1998 as petitioners complied with the terms of the solemn
orders of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 31st of August, 1998 and 22nd
of September, 1998 (supra) by depositing double the amount within the
stipulated date. Therefore, the petitioners became entitled to protection
under the orders dated 31st of August, 1998 and 22nd of September,
1998 from enforcement of any enhanced liability.
Sri Bose argues that the orders of the Hon'ble Single Bench
(supra) have attained finality and the Railways have continued to accept
the payment as directed above by the Hon'ble Single Bench for the
period between 1995-96 up to 2009-10. Strangely however, after 2009-
10 the Railways refused to accept the payments as directed by the
Hon'ble Single Bench (supra) and for such refusal the petitioners cannot
be faulted.
Sri Bose therefore formulates the next point that since the licence
fees were duly paid by the plot holders and accepted for a prolonged
period of time by the Railways, the Railways are now precluded from
enhancing such licence fees. However, the notice for enhancement of
licence fees dated 21st January, 1997 which was the subject matter of
the writ petition being WP 15769(W) of 1998 was followed up by the
Railways by a further notice dated 25th of August, 2004 once again
raising the licence fees to 10% annually instead of 6% annually under
the terms of the original licence and, such payment was payable
retrospectively with effect from 1995-96.
Once again challenging the exorbitant and arbitrary enhancement
of the licence fees by the notice dated 25th of August, 2004 as well as
the subsequent notice dated 18th October, 2004, the plot holders filed a
fresh batch of writ petitions. Sri Bose particularly points out to the fact
that departing from the terms of the original licence as granted by the
Railways to each of the plot holders including the present petitioners
and, without entering into any agreement with the plot holders as
envisaged under the terms of the original licence, this time by the
notices dated 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004, the Railways
demanded that upon the failure of the plot holders to pay the enhanced
licence fees, the plot holders were called upon to quit and vacate.
The notices dated 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004 were
once again challenged before an Hon'ble Single Bench which was
pleased to, inter alia, direct that in the event the petitioners deposit 50%
of the amount claimed on and by 5th November, 2004 they shall be
entitled to a stay on the order of eviction. The order dated 29th October,
2004 of the Hon'ble Single Bench (supra) was challenged in appeal
before an Hon'ble Division Bench by the petitioners. By order dated 5th
November, 2004, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to intervene in
the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 29th October, 2004.
Sri Bose submits that during the course of hearing of the writ
petitions filed by the plot holders in the year 2004, the Railways handed
over a copy of the purported guidelines of the Railway Board dated 24th
of March, 2004. It therefore became necessary for the plot holders to
challenge such guidelines by way of a fresh writ petition being WP
6034(W) of 2005.
The said writ petition is among the batch of the common writ
petitions being argued before this Court. Sri Bose submits that during
the pendency of the above noted writ petitions which essentially
challenge the arbitrary and exorbitant claim of the Railways to
enhanced licence fees and, in default seek eviction of the plot holders,
the petitioners stumbled across the judgment and order dated 10th
August, 2001 passed by an Hon'ble Single Bench in a separate but
connected writ petition being WP 1405(W) of 1997 in the matter of
Kalighat Railway Plot Holders Association vs. Union of India &
Ors. By the said judgment and order dated 10th August, 2001 the
Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia, strike down Para 4.2
and a part of Para 7.1 of the Railway Board guidelines dated 29th
August, 1995. The Hon'ble Single Bench directed that the licence fees
claimed by the Railways can only be enhanced every 5 years and not
every year.
Sri Bose next submits that in spite of the solemn order of the
Hon'ble Single Bench dated 10th August, 2001 striking down parts of
the Railway Board guidelines dated 29th August, 1995 connected to the
enhancement of licence fees, similar provision regarding enhancement
of licence fees at 10% each year has resurfaced in the guideline dated
24th of March, 2004. Sri Bose points out that such provisions for
enhancement cannot be repeated in the year 2004 when the same were
struck down by the judgment and order dated 10th of August, 2001
(supra) which, has attained finality.
Sri Bose argues that therefore for valid reasons the most recent of
the writ petitions being WP 6034(W) of 2005, has been necessitated
whereby challenge has been thrown to the Memo of the Railways dated
24th March, 2004 as well as the subsequent Memos dated 25th August,
2004 and 2nd September, 2004.
The said writ petition, i.e. WP 6034(W) of 2005 was heard by an
Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court on the 22nd of February, 2005
whereby the Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to issue an interim order
in terms of prayer (i) of the writ petition protecting the petitioners/plot
holders from eviction provided deposit is made of 1/3rd of the total claim
raised by the Railways and, such deposit to be made within 10 days
from the date of the order dated 22nd February, 2005. Sri Bose points
out that all the writ petitioners/plot holders in WP 6034(W) of 2005
have paid the amount as directed by the order dated 22nd February,
2005.
Therefore, Sri Bose submits that on a cumulative reading of the
proceedings filed by the plot holders culminating in successive orders of
this Court as discussed above, the petitioners/plot holders are protected
from eviction since the petitioners/plot holders have complied with the
terms imposed upon them from time to time. Similarly, in a connected
writ petition being WP 20147(W) of 2004 this Hon'ble Court was pleased
to direct the petitioner/plot holders to make specific deposits in favour
of the Railways against the licence granted in their favour. Admittedly,
such specific deposits have been made.
Sri Bose points out that the judgment and order of the Hon'ble
Single Bench dated 20th August, 2001 was considered in appeal by an
Hon'ble Division Bench by a judgment and order dated 21st September,
2006 reported in 2006 (4) CHN 771 in the matter of Divisional
Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Sealdah vs. Kalighat Plot
Holders Association & Anr.. The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased
to, inter alia, hold as follows:-
a) That the land value shall be enhanced at 10% every year and the
licence fees at 6% each year;
b) Enhancement of the land value as well as the licence fees
retrospectively was struck down;
c) The enhancement shall be effective from the date of
communication of such decision to the licencee, meaning thereby
prospectively and, not retrospectively.
However, Sri Bose further clarifies that at the stage of hearing of
the appeal by the Hon'ble Division Bench (supra), the Railway Board
Guidelines dated 24th March, 2004 was not placed before the Hon'ble
Division Bench. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Division Bench had no
occasion to deal with the said guidelines dated 24th March, 2004. Sri
Bose though submits that the principle applied by the Hon'ble Division
Bench in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra) holds good and the petitioners/plot
holders cannot be burdened with an arbitrary liability connected to the
enhancement of both the land value and the licence fees retrospectively
as sought to be imposed by the Railways.
An additional point is urged by Sri Bose that under the terms of
the licence the Railways do not have any authority to evict the
petitioners. Each of the licencees/plot holders are running small
businesses and their eviction would lead to deprivation of life and
livelihood. In support of his above noted argument Sri Bose relies upon
the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 29th January,
2016 in Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620 of 2016. Sri Bose points out that the
parties to Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620 of 2016 were small licencees under
the South Central Railway running units under the Catering Policy of
2005. However, the Catering Policy of 2005 was substituted by a new
Catering Policy of 2010 whereby the concerned Railways called for open
bids for licences from the members of their Association. The Hon'ble
Apex Court, taking notice of the nature of the minor business activity
carried on by the licencees under the 2005 Catering Policy, inter alia,
held that the licencees of the members of the South Central Fruit Juice
Stalls Welfare Association ought to stand renewed under the Catering
Policy of 2010. Sri Bose prays for similar treatment to be extended in
favour of the writ petitioners.
Per contra, Sri Moloy Kumar Das, Sri Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Sri
Krishna Das Poddar and Sri Anirban Dutta, Ld. Counsel appearing for
the Railways jointly argue that the petitioners/plot holders have acted
in utter violation of the terms of their licence. Ld. Counsel point out
that the non-payment of both arrear and regular licence fees as
demanded by the Railways is the first blatant violation of the licence
condition. In such circumstances the Railways have been compelled to
issue the eviction notice dated 18th October, 2004.
Ld. Railway Counsel further argue on the point of law that being
fixed tenure licencees under the Railways renewable yearly, does not
confer a vested right on the writ petitioners to be protected from eviction
at all times and to be further protected from payment of the enhanced
licence fees during such time.
Ld. Railway Counsel submit that the policy guidelines of the
Railways enhancing the licence fees from time to time has been upheld
by the Hon'ble Division Bench vide its order dated 21st September, 2006
(supra) since the Hon'ble Division Bench permitted the prospective
enhancement of such licence fees. Therefore, the petitioners are legally
obliged to deposit such licence fees as charged as a precondition to
continue in possession of their respective plots.
It is the further submission of Ld. Railway Counsel that it is the
specific term of each of the licences that the plots should be utilized for
a purpose which is connected to the loading and unloading of wagons
since the petitioners are plot holders in an area which is a Railway
siding. It is argued on the basis of photographs produced before this
Court at the time of hearing that several of the writ petitioners have
erected 'pucca' constructions on their plots in violation of the licence
conditions and, are doing several other businesses which are unrelated
to the loading and unloading of wagons.
Therefore, on the above score too the Railways are entitled to
claim eviction.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials on record
this Court is first required to notice the terms of the original licence
granted in favour of the individual plot holders by the Railways. A copy
of such licence appears at page 144 of WP 6034(W) of 2005. The offer
letter of the licence dated 10th January, 1972 reads as follows:-
"I am prepared to allot a plot of Rly. land measuring 1 K-4ch.-22
Sq. ft. at Bally Super Railway Station siding in your favour purely
as a temporary measure for the purpose of storing coal under the
following terms and conditions:-
(1) That you will not erect any structure on the Railway land.
(2) That you will not assign, transfer, sub-let or sell the rights
granted to you by this license to any person.
(3) That the license will be granted for a period of one year only,
renewable every year at the sole discreation of the administration.
(4) That you will quit and vacate possession of the plot at one
month's notice as and when required by the Railway
Administration, without assigning any reason therefore and this
Administration will not be liable for any compensation whatsoever
for the purpose.
(5) That you will have to pay the annual license fee of Rs.
380.00 and Municipal tax of Rs. 41.00, security deposit of Rs.
_________ and Demarcation fee of Rs. _______ _____
(6) That the Railway does not undertake to place the wagons
next to the plot and you will have to realize or load wagons
whenever placed at the station.
(7) That the license fee and Municipal tax is subject to revision
every five years.
(8) That you will offer regular wagon traffic at this station failing
which termination of license any result.
(9) That you will not default in payment of all he Railway dues
due to the Railway.
(10) That you will execute necessary license agreement with the
railway Administration in the standard from in force on this
Railway, inter alia, the terms and conditions and mentioned above.
If you are agreeable to the above terms and conditions, please send
a letter of acceptance to this office at a very early date to enable the
undersigned to take further action in the matter. The letter of
acceptance should be signed by both the partners viz. by the
Subrata Chakraborty and by Sm. Ila Chakraborty of the Firm M/s.
I. M. Chakraborty."
From the terms of the original licence dated 10th of January, 1972
(supra) this Court notices that such licence is subject to several
conditions. Such conditions, as set forth in the offer letter (supra), are
required to be complied with by the licencees/writ petitioners/plot
holders.
It is further noticed by this Court that the initial licences were
granted for a period of 1 year only, renewable each year at the discretion
of the Railways. Admittedly, for several subsequent periods such
licences were not recalled.
As discussed above in this judgment pending the renewal of such
licence the plot holders/writ petitioners approached this Court by way
of several writ petitions and obtained orders from time to time.
Admittedly, such orders were acted upon by both the parties, i.e. the
plot holders and the Railways with licence fees transacted between the
parties on the strength of such orders. Admittedly again, some of the
plot holders paid lump sum amounts in favour of the Railways on the
strength of the several orders passed by this Hon'ble Court from time to
time as elucidated above in this judgment. On the basis of the
compliance with the orders of this Court, the concerned plot holders
became entitled to protection from eviction by the Railways.
It is trite law that on the basis of a mere licence to continue from
year to year on a renewable basis, the plot holders/petitioners do not
acquire a vested right to be allowed to retain their allotment for an
indefinite period. Moreover, the plot holders are strictly accountable to
function in terms of the original licence (supra) and, on violation of any
or more of the said terms are liable to face penal action as specified in
the original terms and conditions of licence. It is an acceptable position,
both in fact and in law, that the Railways are entitled to raise issues
connected to compliance of the original terms of licence qua the plot
holders/petitioners and, on justification of such issues, their authority
to take penal steps under the terms of the original licence cannot be
circumscribed.
The position of a licence holder has been expressed by the Hon'ble
Apex Court In Re: Corporation of Calicut vs. K. Sreenivasan
reported in 2002 (5) SCC 361. Paragraph 16 thereof reads as
follows:-
" It is true that a licensee does not acquire any interest in the
property by virtue of grant of licence in his favour in relation to any
immovable property, but once the authority to occupy and use the
same is granted in his favour by way of licence, he continues to
exercise that right so long the authority has not expired or has not
been determined for any reason whatsoever, meaning thereby so
long the period of licence has not expired or the same has not been
determined on the grounds permissible under the contract or law.
Occupation of licensee is permissive by virtue of the grant of licence
in his favour, though he does not acquire any right in the property
and the property remains in possession and control of the grantor,
but by virtue of such a grant, he acquires a right to remain in
occupation so long the licence is not revoked and/or he is not
evicted from its occupation either in accordance with law or
otherwise. Main thrust of Section 2(f) of the Act is upon the
expression `occupation' with authority or without authority. If a
person without any authority occupies any public building he
would be a trespasser and his case would be covered by first part
of Section 2(f) and would be liable to be evicted under the
provisions of the Act instead of taking recourse to ordinary law by
filing a properly constituted suit which is dragged on for years
together. Second part of Section 2(f) deals with cases where a
person is in occupation by virtue of an authority granted in his
favour irrespective of the fact whether the authority is in the form of
lease or licence or in any other form. So far as case of lease of a
public building is concerned, upon expiry of the period limited
thereby or its determination in accordance with law, the special
procedure prescribed under the Act providing speedy remedy for
eviction would apply even though some interest in the immovable
property is created in favour of the lessee by virtue of creation of
lease in his favour. But in a case of licence, no interest in the
property is created by virtue of the grant, but a person acquires a
right to continue his occupation by virtue of the authority granted in
his favour under the licence unless the period of licence has expired
or the same has been determined or licence has been revoked
and/or the licensee is evicted by the grantor. If it is held
that Section 2(f) would apply only in case of lease and not in the
case of licence, the position will be very incongruous as in the case
of lease, though a lessee acquires interest in the property which is
a higher right, but he can be evicted under the special procedure
prescribed under the law providing much speedy remedy whereas
in case of licence, a licensee, who does not acquire any interest in
the property and has only some sort of right of occupation by virtue
of the nature of grant in his favour so long he is not evicted, can be
evicted through long drawn ordinary procedure of filing a civil suit.
This could not have been the intention of the Legislature. Apart from
that, out of the expressions `whether by way of lease' or `any other
mode of transfer', the expression `any other mode of transfer' is
very wide and would not necessarily mean only that mode of
transfer whereby a right has been created in immovable property.
The expression `transfer' under the Transfer of Property
Act connotes creation of some interest in immovable property. But
under Section 2(f) of the Act such a restricted meaning would defeat
the purpose of legislation which is impermissible. The expression
"any other mode of transfer" would definitely bring within its sweep
the case of a licensee where right of the grantor to occupy and
continue to occupy immovable property is transferred though under
law, the property remains in possession and control of the grantor.
In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the expression
'unauthorised occupation' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the
Act would embrace within its ambit the case of licensee as well
after expiry of the period of licence or upon its determination for any
reason whatsoever, as such the Estate Officer was quite justified in
initiating proceeding under the Act and passing eviction order
therein."
However, at the same time the fact cannot be lost sight of that
several litigation in respect of same or similar plot(s) have been subject
to orders of this Hon'ble Court from time to time. Some of such orders
have attained finality and, have been acted upon at some points of time
by the Railways. Therefore, this Court cannot be unmindful of the fact
that the several orders passed by this Court from time to time have left
their imprint on the terms of the original licence.
It is further evident that the petitioners have been allowed to
continue to operate from their respective plots for a substantial length of
time. The petitioners/plot holders have also deposited amounts as
directed from time to time by this Hon'ble Court in favour of the
Railways. To the mind of this Court the rights of the petitioners have
crystallised with the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench as reported
in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra). The Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased
to, inter alia, hold at Paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10 as follows:-
"7. After hearing the learned Advocate for the parties and after
going through the materials on record we find that in the case
before us, the decision taken by the railway authority to assess
valuation by fixing 6 per cent of the land-value and by enhancing
the land-value at the rate of 10 per cent every year cannot be said
to be arbitrary and this was not a fit case giving direction upon the
railway authority to change its policy-decision by adopting a policy
fixed by the Court.
8. We, however, find substance in the contention of Mr. Banerjee,
the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents that
in case of licence granted to different licensees even if any policy- decision is taken to enhance the licence-fees at a reasonable rate by following a settled principle, that should be given prospective in operation from the date of publication of such notification to the licensee. There is no dispute that in this case the new policy- decision was conveyed to the licensee in the year 1996 whereas the same was given effect to from a date, 10 years earlier. In our view, that is not permissible. Once the lecensor expresses his intention to enhance the licence-fees, the licensee has a right to take decision whether he will retain the licence or should vacate the property. If new rate of licence-fees is not acceptable to the licensee, he is free to vacate the property; but by imposing new licence-fees at an enhanced rate from an anterior date, the licensee is deprived of that opportunity and, thus, the owner cannot enforce upon them the enhanced rate of licence-fees from an earlier date.
9. As regards the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the learned Single Judge, we find that said decision rather lays down that the policy-decision take by the State should not be interfered with in the writ jurisdiction unless the said decision is tainted with malice or is arbitrary. In the case before us. we do not find any mala fide intention on the part of the railway in formulating the new policy. The railway authority is required to maintain its properties and in the process of such maintenance, if it takes a decision for steady increase of rent every year based on valuation of the land from its licensees who would use the property for business-purpose, meaning making profit by utilising the same, such policy cannot be labelled as an arbitrary one justifying interference in the writ jurisdiction.
10. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge and approve the policy-decision taken by the railway authority subject to the condition that such decision will be effective from the date of communication of the decision to the licensee and not from an earlier point of time."
This Court observes that the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 10th August, 2001 upheld the terms of the original licence subjecting the licence fees and municipal taxes to revision every 5 years. However, the Hon'ble Division Bench in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra) permitted the Railway Authority to reassess valuation by fixing licence fees at 6% of the land valuation and by enhancing the land valuation at the rate of 10% each year as applicable to the Kalighat plot holders which, to the mind of this Court, also applies with full force to the present petitioners who are similarly situated plot holders at Ballygunge Siding.
For the reasons discussed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra), the argument of Sri Bose against any revision of licence fees by the Railways cannot be accepted since, such policy decision enabling revision of rates stood affirmed by the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench (supra) to the extent as directed. At the same time the Hon'ble Division Bench directed that the revision of the licence rates shall have prospective effect from the respective dates of communication of such revision to the licencee and not from any earlier point of time.
To the mind of this Court the present petitioners/plot holders deserve to be similarly treated.
For the above reasons this Court finds that the Memos of the Railways dated 24th March, 2004, 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004 revising the licence fees to 10% annually with retrospective effect cannot be sustained in the light of the clear direction passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra). Such retrospective application of the revised rates which, to the mind of this Court are not only in violation of the terms of the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Division Bench (supra) but, also in violation of the terms of the original licence which permit the revision of licence fees every 5 years, if sustained, would lead to an irreparable injury to the petitioners.
For the reasons stated above the orders impugned dated 24th March, 2004, 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004 or any further or other similar notice of demand already issued by the Railways read with the guidelines of the Railway Board, if any, qua the writ petitioner(s)/plot holders(s) stand set aside.
The Railways are directed to revisit the revision of the licence fees strictly in terms of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench as reported in 2006 (4) CHN 771 (supra).
Such revision shall take effect from the respective dates of communication to the petitioners and, in view of the long pending lis between the parties, for the purpose of fixing a base year for the licence rates to be enforceable the Railways shall be entitled to fix the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected writ petitioner(s)/plot holder(s). The affected writ petitioner(s)/plot holder(s) shall also be heard on the modalities of liquidation of arrear licence fees, if any, upon adjustment(s), if any, of the deposits already made by the writ petitioner(s).
At the same time this Court makes it clear that in case of any deviation by the petitioners from any of the other terms of the original licence brought to the notice of the Railways, the Railways shall be entitled to take recourse to penal steps under the terms of the original licence upon prior notice and hearing to the alleged delinquent plot holder(s).
WP 6034(W) of 2005, WP 20340(W) of 2004, WP 20341(W) of 2004, WP 15769(W) of 1998, WP 3996(W) of 1999, WP 14291(W) of 2004 and WP 20147(W) of 2004 stand accordingly disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent certified photocopy of this Judgment and order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J.)