DIPTI DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for quashing letter dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure 4) issued by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Eastern Railway, Chakradharpur Division (Respondent no. 4) whereby the license fees of the catering units of the petitioner has been determined @ Rs. 20,38,890/- per annum and the same has been imposed with retrospective effect and the petitioner has been asked to deposit the same, which has been enhanced and determined without following the due process. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing letter dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure 7) whereby the contract of the petitioner has been terminated and for quashing of the formula for fixation of license fee for the catering units under the Catering Policy, 2010 issued vide Commercial Circular No. 35/2010 dated 21.07.2010 (Annexure 5) and for issuance of writ of mandamus upon the respondents to determine the license fee, as per the Catering Policy, 2010 and also for restraining the respondents to implement the operation of letter dated 13.06.2013 (Annexure 4) and letter dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure 7). In alternative, it has been prayed to refer the matter to the arbitrator with the terms and conditions, as directed by this Court in L.P.A. No. 372 of 2014 and analogous cases.

(2.) The factual exposition, as described in the writ petition, is that the petitioner is a licensee from the railway authority with regard to various stalls at Chakradharpur Railway Station since September, 1998 and the license fee of the said stalls was Rs. 29,730/- per annum. The petitioner's unit is General Minor Unit (GMU) and Chakradharpur Railway Station has been categorised as "B" Category Station and the petitioner has been paying license fee to the railway authority as and when demanded by them. The Government of India, Ministry of Railways formulated a new catering policy, namely, Catering Policy, 2010 Follow up Action and the same has been circulated, as per Annexure 1 to the writ application and the said policy came into effect from the date of its issuance itself i.e. 09.08.2010. It is stated that from 06.01.2011 to 08.01.2011, the railway authorities conducted sale assessment of the stall of the petitioner and on the basis of sale of the stall of the petitioner, the license fee was proposed to be Rs. 1,96,794/- per annum, as per Annexure 2 of the writ application, but Annexure 2 was never implemented by the railway authorities nor any other sale assessment was made by the railway authorities. The license fee of the petitioner was enhanced to Rs. 71,350/- (approximately) per annum in the year 2011 and the petitioner duly paid the enhanced license fee to the railway authority till January, 2012, as per Annexure 3 to the writ application. But, suddenly the petitioner received letter dated 13.06.2013, issued by respondent no. 4, intimating the determined license fee of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 20,38,890/- per annum and making the demand retrospectively in complete violation of the terms of the catering policy, 2010, as per Annexure 4 to the writ application. On query about letter dated 13.06.2013 from the railway authorities, the petitioner was provided the formula for fixation of license fee. Thereafter, the petitioner filed representation before the railway authorities and without giving any heed to the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner was intimated that her contract has been terminated and she has been directed to vacate the catering unit, as per Annexure 7 to the writ application. It has been averred in the writ application that the license fee of the petitioner has been enhanced 30 times from the last license fee paid by the petitioner, which is extremely exorbitant. It has further been contended in the writ application that the respondents have failed to adhere to the terms of policy in fixation of license fee as contained in provision 18 of the Catering Policy, 2010. It has been further contended in the writ application that same and similar issue has been decided by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 03.11.2014 in L.P.A. No. 372 of 2014 and other analogous cases (Annexure 8) and the case of the petitioner stands on similar footing. With the aforesaid averments, the instant writ application has been filed for redressal of the grievance of the petitioner.

(3.) Per Contra, the respondents have filed counter affidavit repelling the assertions made in the writ applications. Apart from raising the question of maintainability on the ground of locus of the petitioner, the respondents have stated in the counter affidavit that the decisions rendered by this Court in L.P.A. No. 372 of 2014 and other analogous cases have no applicability in the petitioner's case as the petitioner is not a bona fide licensee. It has also been stated in the counter affidavit that after the death of husband of the petitioner, Late R.N. Dey, no agreement existed between the Railway administration and the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has got no locus standi to reap the benefit of the judgment rendered in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals.