Patna High Court - Orders
Mattan Mahaldar @ Mattan M. vs The Union Of India & Ors on 19 July, 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9725 of 2005
1. MRS. KUSUM DEVI W/O OF LATE SHASHI KUMAR R/O MOHALLA-
MAHRAJA HATA PO & PS- ARA NAWADAH, DISTT- BHOJPUR AT
PRESENT R/O REFRESHMENT ROOM CONTRACTOR AT ARA RAILWAY
STATION, ARA UNDER DANANPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY
2. KANAHAIYA LAL & SONS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR SURENDRA
PD. GUPTA S/O LATE KANHAIYA LAL, R/O VILL & PO-
KNIROULI PS- DUMARAON DISTT- BHOJPUR AT PRESENT VENDING
CONTRACTOR AT DUMAROAN RAILWAY STATION DISTT- BUXAR
UNDER DANAPUR OF EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
3. ABDUL MAJID KHAN S/O ABDUL HAMIN KHAN, R/O KHALASI
MAHALLA AT & PO & PS- JHAJHA DISTT- JAMUI AT PRESENT
VENDING CONTRACTOR AT JHAJHA RAILWAY STATION-JHAJHA
DISTT- JAMUI UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION OF EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY.
4. UMA SHANKAR VERMA & BROTHERS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
UMA SHANKAR VERMA S/O LATE CHULHAN PD. R/O/PO/PS
JEHANABAD AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT JEHANABAD
RAILWAY STATION JEHANABAD UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY.
5. MD. FAHIM KHAN & SONS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR MD. IRSHAD
KHAN S/O MD. FAHIM KHAN R/O.PS- JHAJHA DISTT- JAMUI AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT JHAJHA RAILWAY DISTT-
JAMUI, UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION OF EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
6. M/S SMT.SUNDARI DEVI THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAKESH
KUMAR GUPTA S/O LATE BISHUNDEO PD. GUPTA R/O/PS DILDAR
NAGAR DISTT- GAJIPUR (UP) AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR
AT DILDARNAGAR RAILWAY STATION UNDER DANAPAUR DIVISION
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
7. J.P. SINGH & BROTHERS THROUGH PROPRIETOR SURENDERA
KUMAR SINGH S/O LATE JOGENDRA PD.SINGH, R/O-MOHALLA
SOUTH DHADKHA, ASANSOL AT PRESENT REFRESHMENT ROOM
BUXAR RAILWAY STATION, DISTT- BUXAR UNDER DANAPUR
DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
8. KAMTA PD. RATHORE S/O LATE SITARAM RATHORE, R/O VILL- &
PS- NEORA, DISTT- PATNA AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR
NEORAH STATION UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY.
9. HARI KRISHNA CHAURASIYA S/O RAM PD. CHAURASIYA R/O
SATRAMGANJ BAZAR BHADAURAH, PS- BAHADURAH DISTT-
GAJIPUR AT PREENT VENTING CONTRACTOR AT BHADAURAH
RAILWAY STATION UNDER DANAAPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY.
10. DINDAYAL GUPTA & SONS THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAM
NARAYAN GUPTA S/O DINDAYAL GUPTA R/O-MOHALLA HUMAD GALI
PO- BEGAMPUR, PS- MALASALAMI, PATNACITY DISTT- PATNA AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT PATNA SAHIB RAILWAY
STATION, PATNA UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION EAST CNETRAL
RAILWAY.
11. M/S KEDAR NATH THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR RAM PRAVESH
PD. S/O KEDAR NATH, VENDING CONTRACTOR AT BIHTA RAILWAY
STATION PS- BIHTA DISTT- PATNA UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
12. SHAMSHUDDIN S/O MD. KALMUDDIN AT PRESENT VENDING
CONTRACTOR AT JAMUNIYA RAILWAY STATION PS- JAMUNIYA,
DISTT- GAJIPUR UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY
13. SHAHID USMAN S/O S.A. REHMAN R/O MOHALLA-MILKI
PO/PS/DISTT--ARA AT PRESENT FRUIT CONTRACTOR,PATNA
-2-
JUNCTION RAILWAY STATION PS- KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA
UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
14. GANESH PD. & SONS THROUGH ITS PROPREITOR PREM
KUMAR S/O GANESH PD. AT PRESENT FRUIT CONTRACTOR AT
PATNA JUNCTION RAILWAY STATION PS-KOTWALI, PATNA UNDER
DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
15. M/S CHANDRA KANTA DEVI THROUGH ITS PRO. LAKHAN
PD. S/O SURENDRA GUPTA AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT
BUXAR RAILWAY STATION PO/PS/DISTT- BUXAR UNDER DANAPUR
DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
16. M/S SARFARAJ AHMAD KHAN & SONS THROUGH ITS
PROPRIETOR MANSOOR ALI KHAN S/O SHARIF KHAN, VENDING
CONTRACTOR AT BUXAR RAILWAY STATION PS/DISTRT- BUXAR
UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
17. RAM SWARATH RAI S/O LAT DAS RAI VENDING
CONTRACTOR AT RAJGIR RAILWAY STATION PS- RAJGIR, DISTT-
NALANDA UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
18. MOHD. KAMAL S/O LATE MOHD SAHMAT AT PRESENT
VENDING CONTRACTOR AT BUXAR RAILWAY STATION PS/DISTT-
BUXAR UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
19. M/S SHARDANAND DHURB PD. FRUIT VENDING CONTRACTOR
THROUGH ITS PROP. DHRUB PD. S/O LATE JOGINDER SINGH R/O
MOHALLA-RAILPAR PS/DISTT- ASANSOL (WB) AT PRESENT FRUIT
CONTRACTOR AT PATNA JUNCTION RAILWAY STATION, PATNA PS-
KOTWALI, DISTT- PATNA UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY.
20. SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP.
SUSHIL KUMAR SHARMA S/O SHYAM SUNDER SHARMA, R/O
MOHALLA BIHARI MILL PS- ARA NAWADA DISTT- ARA AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT ARA RAILWAY STATION UNDER
DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
21. M/S KAMTA PD. CHAURASIA THROUGH ITS PROP.
HARICHANDRA CHAURASIA S/O LATE KAMTA PD. CHAURASIA AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT JAMANIYA RAILWAY STATION
PS- JAMANIYA DISTT- GAJIPUR UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION,
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
22. MAQBOOL AHMAD KHAN & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP.
IMTEYAZ KHAN S/O MAQBOOL ALI KHAN VENDING CONTRACTOR
JHAJHA RAILWAY STATION, PS-JHAJHA DISTT- JAMUI UNDER
DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
23. SHEO PD. & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP. LAKSHMI NARAYAN
S/O LATE SHEO PD. AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR JHAJHA
RAILWAY STATION PS- JHAJHA DISTT- JAMUI UNDER DANAPUR
DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
24. RAJ BALLABH SHARMA S/O LATE DHANUKDHARI SHARMA AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR JHAJHA RAILWAY STATION PS-
JHAJHA DISTT- JAMUI AND VENDING CONTRACTOR AT KIUL
RAILWAY STATION PS/DISTT- LAKHISARAI, UNDER DANAPAUR
DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
25. JEWANAND PANDEY @ JEEBNANDAN PANDEY S/O LATE SHIV
BACHAN PANDEY R/O/PS- BIHIYA DISTT- ARA AT PRESENT
VENDING CONTRACTOR AT BIHIYA RAILWAY STATION UNDER
DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
26. M/S DEO KUMAR DEVI & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP. VIJAY
KUMAR S/O LATE RAMCHANDRA PD. R/O/PS- ARA NAWADA DISTT-
ARA AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR AT ARA RAILWAY
STATION UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
27. ABDUL AHAD S/O LATE ALI HUSSAIN R/O MOHALLA-
DUDHKATORA PS- TOWN ARA DISTT- ARA AT PRESENT FRUIT
CONTRACTOR AT ARA RAILWAY STATION UNDER DANAPUR
DIVISION OF EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
-3-
28. M/S PANCHU RAM & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP.BRAJ
KISHORE SHARMA S/O PANCHU RAM R/O/PS- KHAGAUL DISTT-
PATNA AT PRESENT VENDING CONTRACTOR DANAPUR UNDER
DANAPUR DIVISION, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY.
29. MANIK CHAND CHAURASIA S/O LATE SURAJNATH RAM
CHAURASIA AT & PO/PS-DILDARNAGAR DISTT- GAJIPUR (UP) AT
PRESENT VENDING CONTRTACTOR AT BAHHTIYARPUR RAILWAY
STATION UNDER DANAPUR DIVISION EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY----
--------------------------------PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. INDIAN RAILWAYS,
NEW DELHI
2. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY THROUGH THE DIV. RAILWAY
MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY DANAPUR
4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT (CATERING) EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, DANAPUR
5. IRCTC LTD. 9TH FLOOR BANK OF BARODA BUILDING, 16
PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, IRCTC LTD. 9TH FLOOR BANK OF
BARODA BUILDING 16 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI--------
---------------------------RESPONDENTS
with
CWJC No.2307 of 2004
MATTAN MAHALDAR @ MATTAN M. S/O LATE GOVIND MAHALDAR
R/O VILL- MATHURAPUR (SHIVNARAYANPUR) PS-SHIVNARAYANPUR
(KAHALGAON) DISTT- BHAGALPUR----------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN
RAILWAY, HAWRAH, KOLKATTA
2. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY, MALDA
3. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY MALDA
4. STATION MANAGER, EASTERN RAILWAY SHIVNARAYANPUR,
BHAGALPUR---------------------------RESPONDENTS.
with
CWJC No.12920 of 2005
JAI BEHARI LAL & SONS THROUGH ONE OF ITS PROP. PRAMOD
BEHARI LAL S/O LATE JAI BIHARI LAL, R/O MOHALLA- SADAR
BAZAR, BEHARI LANE, DANAPUR CANTT. PS- DANAPUR,DISTT-
PATNA----------------------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. INDIAN RAILWAY,
RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY THROUGH THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY
MNAGER EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR
3. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER,EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY DANAPUR
4. THECHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT (CATERING) EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY DANAPUR
5. IRCTC LTD. 9TH FLOOR BANK OF BARODA BUILDING 16
PARLIAMENT STREET NEW DELHI-110001
6. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, IRCTC LTD. 9TH FLOOR BANK OF
BARODA BUILDING 16 PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI.-------
------------------------------------RESPONDENTS
with
CWJC No.12328 of 2005
DEVAN MAHTO S/O LATE RAJO MAHTO R/O/PS MOKAMEH, DISTT-
PATNA SECY. ANPURNA CATERING VENDORS CANTEEN SOCIETY
MOKAMEH, AT PRESENT CATEROR/VENDING CONTRACTOR AT
MOKAMEH RAILWAY STATION, DISTT- PATNA UNDER DANAPUR
-4-
DIVISION EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY------PETITIONER
Versus
THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS (RESPONDENTS ARE THE SAME AS
IN CWJC NO.12920/2005)
with
CWJC No.12598 of 2005
1. AQUIL ASLAM JAFFAR & COMP. THROUGH ITS PROP.NUZHAT W/O
LATE AQUIL ASHALAM JAFFAR R/O SARFAROZ MANZIL NEW
KARBIGAHIYA PS- JAKKANPUR, DISTT- PATNA
2. M/S LAL BIHARI SHARMA & SONS THROUGH ITS PROP. RADHEY
SHYAM S/O LATE LAL BIHARI SHARMA R/O VILL- PALI POS-
FATANPUR DISTT- PRATAPGARH (UP)
3. M/S GANESH PD. &SONS THROUGH ITS PROP. PREM KUMAR S/O
LATE GANESH PD. R/O NEW KARBIGAHIYA PS- JAKKANPUR,
DISTT-PATNA--------------------PETITIONERS
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUG ITS SECY. INDIAN RAILWAY,
RAIL BHAWAN NEW DELHI
2. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER,
EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR
3. THE DIV. MANAGER, MUGALSARAI UNDER EAST CENTRAL
RAILWAY, HAJIPUR
4. THE SR. DIV. COMMERCIAL MANAGER, MUGALSARAI, UNDER EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY HAJIPUR
5. THE DIV. COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT, MUGALSARAI, EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY HAJIPUR--------------RESPONDENTS
with
CWJC No.15093 of 2005
PANKAJ KUMAR S/O SHYAM NANDAN SINGH R/O DAKBUNGLAW
ROAD, MOKAMAH, PS- MOKAMAH, DIST- PATNA AT PRESENT
VENDING CONTRACTOR, RAXAUL THROUGH STATION CONTROLLER,
RAXAUL--------------------------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUH THE SECY. INDIAN RAILWAY, NEW
DELHI.
2. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY THROGUH THE DIV. RAILWAY
MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR
3. THE DIV. COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY
SAMASTIPUR
4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT( CATERING), EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR----------RESPONDENTS
with
CWJC No.15685 of 2005
SHANTI DEVI W/O LATE VIJAY KUMAR PODDAR R/O MOHALLA-
RAJ KUMARGANJ (SAFFULAGANJ) PS- DARBHANGA TOWN PS-
LALBAG, DISTT- DARBHANGA, VENDING CONTRACTOR EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY DARBHANGA------------PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECY. INDIAN RAILWAY
2. THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY THROUGH THE DIV. MANAGER, EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR
3. DIV. COMMMERCIAL MANAGER (e) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY,
SAMASTIPUR
4. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL SUPERINTENDENT (CATERING) EAST
CENTRAL RAILWAY SAMASTIPUR
5. IRCTC LTD.
6. SR. DIV.COMMERICIAL MANAGER,DANAPUR---RESPONDENTS.
-----------
For the petitioners: M/s N.K.Singh, Binod Kumar
Nilelsh Kumar & C.M. Singh
Advocates
For the Railway: Mr. H.P. Singh & Mr. B.Narayan
-5-
Yadav, Advocates
For IRCTC: Mr. A.Amanulla, Mr.M.K.Pathak
& Mr. J.G.Khan, Advocates
-------------
27 19/7/2010In all the writ applications there are similar grievances, if not common relief, therefore they were all clubbed and listed together for final disposal.
All the petitioners are licensee vendors/caterers under the East Central Railway and have been doing the job of vending at several Railways stations under the respondents on the basis of license granted to them by the concerned Railway authorities. Many of them have been in business of vending or catering for many a years, if not a decade or two.
The standard agreement which every petitioner had to sign contains the terms and conditions of the license by which the parties would be bound. The license fees have been fixed by the respondents from time to time and are amenable to revision. As per the old agreement the petitioners have been paying the license fee regularly. But the reason for them to approach the High Court is the demands which have come to be made from them by letter issued in the year 2005. The amount is variable. One such a demand which has been annexed with CWJC No. 9725 of 2005 as annexure-3/A is being noticed in some detail to cull out the basic submissions which will flow from the same. Letter dated 26.6.2005 addressed to one J.P. Singh & Brothers, vending contractor of Buxar station states that the catering and vending fee has been revised provisionally to a figure per month from 1.7.99 -6- which again stood revised at enhanced rate from 1.4.2000 and based on the said revision a figure of Rs. 12, 35,201/- has been demanded as arrears. Similar is the story with regard to other petitioners.
The demand has been termed as astronomical and illegal since they are from a retrospective date by all these persons who are holding vending or catering licenses. It is such demands upon the petitioners which are subject matter of challenge in all these writ applications.
The first submission is that enhancement from a retrospective date is not permissible. Any revision in license fee will take effect from the date of such revision and would be prospective in nature and enhancement from the year 1999 being made or claimed in the year 2005 is per se arbitrary.
The second submission is that the rate of revision is neither reasonable nor fair or rational. For example a contractor holding a fruit stall was expected to pay a sum of Rs. 262.47 as per the agreement dated 1.4.1985 stands revised many times over and in some cases even 100 percent. Petitioners were never informed or told in advance. Revision or demand has been made without giving any proper notice or information. Such illegal demands and the quantum worked out by them will virtually oust them from their business and leave them without any source of earning or livelihood. Since most of these petitioners are venders engaged in this business for many a decades, if not from one generation to -7- other, the decision of the respondents has the effect of starving the petitioners and their families if not reduce them to the level of beggars. None of them has capability to start life afresh.
The respondents were directed therefore to state their position and shed light on their decision.
As per the counter affidavit filed in CWJC No. 9725 of 2005 the stand of the Railway is that 1992 policy under which the license fee was fixed and being paid by the licensees had become too old. A new catering policy was brought into effect from 2000, keeping in mind the increase in the earning of the vendors since the number of trains and passengers had gone up many folds over a period of time. There is provision for revision in the license fee agreement. The Railways have right to enhance the license fee. Earlier the petitioners were paying license fee at the rate of 5 percent of their monthly sale turn over but in terms of 99 policy decision the license fee was revised with effect from 1.7.99 to 12 percent of monthly sale. The revision was effected from 1.7.99 which was to be applicable till 31.3.2000.
In another policy guideline issued in the year 2000 a further increase of 10 percent with effect from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 was brought into effect. The revisions effected were not paid by many a vendors and therefore the demands were being issued for collecting the arrears, outstanding against the vendors who had continued to pay the license fee at the old rate.
It is also indicated by the respondents that 99 -8- catering policy or 2000 policy became the subject matter of dispute in various High Courts. Several decisions came to be rendered by the High Courts. Some originating from Kerla. The cases finally travelled to the Supreme Court and the decision given by Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 29th of March 2005 in Civil Appeal No. 4897 of 2002 along with other analogous cases has been annexed with the counter affidavit. Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering several orders opined that the revision brought about is not retrospective but were demands based on the earlier revision which was never put into effect due to various litigations and pendency of cases in several High Courts. Now that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has finally decided that the Railways were free to enforce the outstanding dues from all such vendors who had not paid the license fees in terms of the provisional revision made from 1.7.99 to 31.3.2000 as well as the revision effected from 1.4.2000 to 31.3.2005 the respondents have moved in the matter.
There is yet another affidavit by what is known as Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC). Their stand is that the license fee being charged from the vendors is based on the policy decision taken by the Railways Board and enforced across the country. The earlier revision became subject matter of dispute and therefore the Railway Board had also intervened and passed a status quo order against enforcement. Only after the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court the Railway -9- Board gave a go ahead for recovery of the revised fee since the revision effected per se was never interfered with by any Court.
Some of the counsels representing their clients in the light of above submission of the Railway took yet another stand. Their contention is that the policy by virtue of which the revision and the license fee was worked out does not take into consideration the ground reality in existence. In many a zones and stations across the country a uniform yard stick for revision has led its own problem. Categorization and clubbing of many stations as a unit has led to anomalous situation. Instances were pointed out to Court where a small station located in the district of Bhagalpur with not much in terms of volume of business have been equated with some of the bigger stations of that area. In absence of any correct study or verification of data available the demand and the revision requires a re-look.
Taking into consideration the terms and conditions incorporated in the license read with the policy decisions of revision as well as the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N.B. Krishna Kurup the submission made by the petitioners that the demand notice issued upon them is illegal and arbitrary seems to be misplaced. Their submission that the revision is being effected from a retrospective date does not seem to be true as the demands are not new revisions but the claim of arrears for earlier revision which was not paid.
The revision had already been made provisionally
- 10 -
in the year 1999 and thereafter from 1.4.2000. Since the old revision could not be enforced through and through for the reasons indicated in the earlier part of the order it is only after the settlement and adjudication of the dispute by the Apex Court the Railway got a free hand to enforce the revision. It cannot be anybodies case that the revision has been effected or notified in the year 1995 but from a prior date. Challenge on the ground of retrospectivity therefore is fit to be rejected.
The other aspect however does require a re-look. Uniform application of the policy which provides for clubbing unequal with equals and creating liability upon persons who are not similarly situated may reflect irrationality and therefore arbitrary. If that is so then some of the facts and figures which have been produced on record by some of the petitioners require reconsideration.
The Court is informed that a new catering policy is in the offing and that will take care of a lot of issues urged in the present writ applications. I hope that the new catering policy is more rational and based on some scientific study in this regard based on some data and inputs collected by the respondents. The Court however is not much impressed on the issue of a new policy specially if it does not take care of the grievance of some of the petitioners which has been noticed in this order. In all these cases where the demands raised are not based on consideration of all the parameters which have gone into fixing the revision, they shall
- 11 -
have the freedom to represent before the respondents for reconsideration. But in other cases where the issue is only for recovery of outstanding license fees which was being enforced on passing of the final order of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents have freedom to proceed.
All the writ applications stand disposed of with the observation as above.
RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)