C.P. MITTAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these writ proceedings, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, common questions of fact and law arise for consideration. They were, with consent of parties heard together. All the petitioners are lincensees of the respondents. They are operating public call offices (PCOs) in one or the other railway platforms/spaces under the control of the second respondent, Northern Railways. They are aggrieved by revision of terms of the licences to the extent that the second respondent has demanded enhancement of commission to up to 102% and more, in comparison with the existing commission. They seek suitable directions that such demands should not be enforced.

(2.) ALL the petitioners were allotted/awarded licences to operate PCOs in premises under the control of the second respondent, specifically in railway platforms etc. The conditions of licence, among others, stipulated payment of licence fee on annual basis with reference to the area occupied. That was made subject to revision/enhancement from time to time. The petitioners were chosen as licencees as a measure of rehabilitation; in many cases these were on compassionate basis. In some cases the allotments were based on the applicants' physical disability; and in others on account of unemployment.

(3.) ON application of the above policy dated 20.05.02, the railways started collecting the minimum commission according to the rates specified in the circular, i.e minimum 10%. The commission had co-relationship the commission payable to the licensee, by the service provider, namely, MTNL/BSNL. The commission admissible to the petitioners was defined by franchise agreements which contained stipulations as to call charges that could be recovered and also the rates of commission, expressed in percentage to the total revenue earned through calls, payable to them. By way of an illustration, the relevant conditions from one of the agreement, namely, Clauses 5 and 17 are extracted below :