BISWA RANJAN BOSE Vs. GENERAL MANAGER EASTERN RAILWAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Rule is heard alongwith C. R. No. 10129 (W) of 1981 (Messrs. S. S. Nayar & Company v. General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors.), C.R.No. 6116 (W) of 1981 (M/s. S. K. Banerjee & Co, P. Ltd. v. General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors.) and C.O. No.14075 (W) of 1986 (Ambika Prasad Shaw & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.). Since common questions of fact and law are involved in all the cases, the learned Lawyers appearing for the respective parties have agreed for analogous hearing of all the 4 (Four) matters.

(2.) The petitioners were allotted different plots at Chitpur Railway Siding for unloading and accommodating consignments carried by Railways. They have prayed for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to resume and continue booking and placement of wagons by cancelling, recalling and rescinding the impugned orders, notices and steps for taking possession of the petitioners' plots without taking recourse to the proceedings of law. It is stated that the petitioners were enjoined to execute respective agreements for use and occupation of the plots in question and at the time of execution of agreement, the petitioners were subjected to licence fee, municipal taxes, demarcation fee and security deposit. The petitioners were, however, surprised to find the demand of the enhanced licence fee and took steps to interfere with the possession of the petitioners and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the impugned acts, omissions and commissions, the petitioners have come to this Writ Court seeking reliefs on the ground that the impugned charges and/ or implement for use of railway land must have quid pro quo or co-relationship with the fees collected and cost of services rendered and there being additional cost incurred by the Railways in allowing such use of premises over and above the charges so increased are unwarranted and uncalled for. It is stated in details that the respondents being under statutory and contractual obligations to book, carry and place wagons consignments to the petitioners' plots and their responsibility as common carrier/bailee having not to terminate till wagons are placed at the destination plot within the boundary of Railway Station, refusal and/ or denial of the said statutory facilities to the petitioners and allowing the same to some other traders either under power from superior authority or under the terms of the impugned agreement offend mandatory provisions of law inter alia section 3(4), 27, 58, 72, 77(5) of Railways Act, Rules 123, 134 and 145 of Goods Tariff. It is further challenged that the plots in question being demarcated separate holding are not to be taxed by the Local Authorities.

(3.) The writ petitions are challenged by the Railway Authorities by filing affidavit-in-opposition. It is disclosed that as per procedure prevalent at the material period, Railway Land (Plots ) were allotted by way of licence to the parties and those were subject to revision on five yearly basis @ 6% of market value of land as may be assessed by the Local Revenue Authorities and notices to that effect were issued to all plot-holders in Chitpur Area including the petitioners. Thereafter, a meeting was held with the Senior Divisional Engineer, Sealdah on 17th November 1980 where a resolution was passed to increase the annual valuation of land to be arrived by 10 per cent simple annual appreciation of the existing valuation and all plot holders in Chitpur including the petitioners were duly informed by notice's about the proposed increase of rate of licence fee etc. On such enhancement, the petitioner took recourse to law and an interim order was passed by the Hon'ble High Court but the petitioners stopped payment of licence fee at the old rate. It is denied that fees realized by the Railway Administration from the allotted plot holders for the siding enjoyed by them in law is levied in the form of tax under Article 269(c) & (d) as alleged or at all. It is asserted that the Railway Administration realized licence fee from the plot holders In terms of the agreement. The Municipal. Tax realized in proportionate to the plots used by the petitioners as the plots in questions are portions of the entire Railway Sidings which have been assessed for consolidated rates leviable under the Calcutta Municipal Act. It is placed on record that the Railway Administration can lawfully enhance the licence fee of the Railway siding plots on the basis of the enhanced market price of the plot. The assessment at the interval of the 5 (five) years is being made in accordance with extant rule and the licence fee is imposed on the basis of the market value of land so assessed. It is further stated that the restrictions have been imposed on the ground of administrative convenience and the same are reasonable.