RAVINDRA NATH BOHRE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER who is a licencee of the Railway Administration to run a tea stall in Soni Railway Station under Jhansi Division of the North Central Railway feels aggrieved by issuance of a demand notice Annexure P-1 dated 17.7.2006 whereby he has been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 36,000/-. Grievance of the petitioner is that from time to time he has deposited all the licence fee. Petitioner is licenced to establish only a tea shop without a running trolley. However, licence fee is claimed now from the petitioner, inter alia contending that the demand notice issued is unjust and arbitrary, petitioner has deposited all the licence fee and Station Master is restraining the petitioner from running the stall in an arbitrary manner by using force and is compelling the petitioner to close the stall on the ground that licence fee is not paid, petitioner seeks interference in the matter.

(2.) KU . Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner by taking me through the various documents filed by her in the matter invites my attention to the following judgments and argued that action of the respondents in demanding the licence fee as indicated in Annexure P-1 and using coercive steps by stopping the petitioner from carrying out the business is arbitrary and unjust, violative of the fundamental rights to life guaranteed to the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, she seeks interference in the matter. The judgments relied upon by Ku. Sudha Shrivastava are :

(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, it is thought appropriate to consider the preliminary objections raised by the respondents/railway administration with regard to maintainability of this petition. Dispute in the present case is as to whether petitioner has paid licence fee in accordance with the agreement and subsequently enhanced by the railway administration from time to time or not? Even though petitioner contends that he has deposited the entire amount, railway administration refutes the aforesaid and according to Shri V.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for respondents, as on date, a sum more than Rs. 30,000/- is required to be paid by the petitioner. That being so, it is a case where serious dispute regarding amounts of licence fee payable by the petitioner exists. That apart, the question as to whether the petitioner is required to maintain a trolley is also in dispute between the parties. Clause 30 of the agreement Annexure R-5/10 clearly contemplates that all dispute between the parties arising out of agreement has to be resolved by way of arbitration. In the cases relied upon by Ku. Sudha Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, the questions considered were that even in disputed matter pertaining to the contract writ petition can be entertained in certain circumstances. However, the question of maintainability of a writ petition when a arbitration clause is incorporated in the contract has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and others v. Bridge and Roof Company (India) Ltd. [1996 (6) SCC 22], in the aforesaid case it has been held by the Supreme Court that when the contract itself provides the mode of settlement of a dispute arising for the contract, parties should follow and adopt that remedy and invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not permissible. It has been held by the Supreme Court that when an efficacious remedy existence in the contract itself. It is good ground for the Writ Court to decline exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been held by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case under :