PARAKASH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the year 1979 the Railway authorities granted a licence to the petitioner herein to put up a small temporary shed in the railway yard for storing coir yarn to be booked through wagons. The licence was for one year. Making use of this licence the petitioner put up a substantial concrete structure, with two or three rooms. I do not know why and how he was permitted to do this: the Railways have a number of Permanent Way INspectors, Engineers and an army of other staff to look after their interest and property. After some time, it seems, the administration became aware of the need for restricting the activities of the petitioner: they even thought of evicting him. The petitioner then approached the civil court and obtained an order of injunction. Ultimately the civil suit was dismissed; but by this time, the railway authorities became more generous. IN spite of the civil court's decision in their favour, they felt that the petitioner need not be evicted. They started bargaining as to the rent he should pay for the concrete structure. Ultimately, they said that the petitioner should pay Rs. 84,000; per year. It appears that at an earlier stage their demand was for Rs. 14,400/.

(2.) THE petitioner has now come to this court complaining that the Railway authorities have no fixed or proper policy in the matter of extracting rent from persons like him. To use the latest and most fashionable jargon, the complaint is that the Railways are acting arbitrarily. (Of course, the petitioner seems to have a consistent policy: to encroach, and then sit tight over the encroachment ). At one stage they were prepared to accept Rs. 14,400/ -. Later they wanted Rs. 84,000/ -. This, it is claimed, has flagrantly violated all the petitioner's equality rights under Art. 14 of the Constitution: even an encroacher is entitled to seek protection from arbitrary action, claims counsel.