VIJAY KUMAR CHOWRASIYA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFORESAID three writ petitions have been filed by trolley/stall holders selling eatables under licence from the Railways at different railway stations falling in the erstwhile Western Railways prior to reorganization of the Zones. They are aggrieved by the increase in the amount of license fee and consequential recovery thereof and have therefore approached this Court by filing these writ petitions. While Writ Petition No. 4391/00 has been jointly filed by as many as seventeen petitioners and there are ninety nine petitioners in Writ Petition No. 4799/2001 but the Writ Petition No. 4734/2000 has been filed by the petitioner Anil Goyal alone. Since the grievance raised in these petitions was founded on similar facts and redressal of which has been sought for by raising similar arguments of law, they were heard together and are now being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BEFORE the rival arguments raised by the respective counsels in the cases are taken up for consideration, I deem it appropriate to first deal with the factual scenario giving raise to filing of these petitions.

(3.) SHRI G. S. Bapna, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the increase in the licence fee retrospectively by impugned demand notice was wholly unsustainable in law as the same was contrary to the Railways Board's decision dated 22. 10. 86. Relying on the judgment of this Court in National Federation, supra, SHRI Bapna argued that the controversy has been settled at rest by this Court in the said judgment in which no notice was given to the petitioners prior to respective increase in the amount of licence fee in relation to past 15 years and it was held that the authority at the divisional headquarters or any other subordinate authority cannot take a decision contrary to the decision taken by the Railway Board. It was argued that the licence fee at any rate cannot be increased retrospectively. This Court in the said judgment has authoritatively held that the licence fee cannot be increased by more than 25% to 50% whereas the proposed increase in the impugned notice is to the extent of even 3,000%. Referring to the chart enclosed with the writ petition as Schedule A, SHRI Bapna explained that the petitioners have been regularly making payment of the licence fee right from 1985 to 1989 as demanded and now suddenly after 15 years, the amount of licence fee has been enormously raised making such increase effective from 1st April, 1985. The petitioners who are only small time entrepreneurs are earning their livelihood by selling eatables on the platforms and they can ill afford such a multifold increase in the amount of licence fee and that too after such a long span of time.