MANINDRA NATH MUKHERJI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the two writ applications a number of businessmen carrying on business in several plots of land at the commercial plots of the Railway Administration near Jadavpur Railway Station since 1950-51 have challenged a number of notices dated 6th January, 1986 asking them to vacate the respective plots within 30 days from the receipt of the notices. Both the applications are disposed of by this judgement.

(2.) The petitioners were bringing quantities of goods on railway siding through Goods Train and each of the petitioners became the source of revenue of the respondents to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs per year. The agreement entered with the Railways in respect of the said plots of land is subject to renewal from time to time and the licence fee is also subject to revision. In or about 1981 the Railway Authority framed a scheme to utilise the commercial plots for their administrative purpose and decided to allot new commercial plots to the writ petitioners within the railway premises as alternative to the existing plots and the said scheme was finally prepared in 1983, a copy of which is also annexed to the writ applications as drawn by the District Engineer (Construction) and this plan was approved by the authorities sometime in 1985. Thereafter the impugned notice dated 6th January, 1986 were issued by the respondent 4 asking the petitioners to deliver vacant possession of the said plots of railway land "urgently required by the Railway Administration for carrying out modification required to provide more passenger amenities . . . . . . . . . . ." etc. The contention of the petitioners is that it is apparent from the plan annexed to the writ application that the alternative commercial plots have been arranged in lieu of the existing commercial plots under the occupation of the petitioners but without first allotting the said plots to the existing petitioners after executing the agreement and without granting sufficient time to prepare and make ready new place for business purpose, the authorities acted, arbitrarily by serving the impugned notices attempting to deprive the petitioners not only from the place of their business but also depriving them to get their licences renewed and thus totally stopping their means of livelihood.

(3.) By a supplementary affidavit the petitioners in C.O. No. 690(W) of 1986 stated that the cyclostyled sketch map was prepared by the Superintending Engineer, State Highway Planning Circle, P.W. (Roads) Department, in May 1985. In April, 1986 the Railway Board Vigilence Inspector (Traffic), New Delhi, came to the site and met the petitioners concerned who narrated the grievances of the petitioners to him and pointed out that he has inserted in the sketch map the alternative commercial plots marked as 'B' and 'C' and also those plots occupied by Union of India A.I.R. unauthorised persons shown as mark 'A' At the request of the particular deponent. Biswanath Das, the officer parted with a copy of the sketch map which is annexed with the affidavit-in-reply in C.O. No. 690(W) of 1986. By the initiative of the Chairman, Borough Committee of the Calcutta Municipal Corporation a meeting was arranged to discuss the matter on 22nd April, 1987 in the Writers' Buildings in the room of the Minister, P.W.D., West Bengal, where the Chief Engineer, Eastern Railways (Construction) was present and the Chief Engineer assured that they would see that the alternative accommodations were provided to the writ petitioners but first the petitioners must undertake in writing to get the interim order obtained in the writ applications, vacated On such an undertaking given, the Railway Authority would issue a letter of assurance to the petitioners to the effect that they would be accommodated in alternative new commercial plots.