BHUNESHWAR THAKUR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) Though counter affidavit has been filed in both the matters by the respondents-railways, but there is no representation on their behalf today when the matter is taken up. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2119/2006 and in W.P.(C) No.2084/2006 both have assailed notices dated 22nd February 2006 (Annexure-5) and 27th December 2005 (Annexure-1) respectively whereunder a demand of revised licence fee from 5th February 1990 to 31st March 2006 and from 5th February 1991 to 31st March 2006 respectively in case of both the petitioners have been raised. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2119/2006 has also challenged the revised bill of licence fee for the aforesaid period as contained in letter dated 11th June 2005 (Annexure-2). Petitioner no.1 has been granted licence to run a Stall No.16 at railway station, Dhanbad in the year 1990 with a licence fee fixed at Rs.4757/- per annum. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2084/2006 has also been granted licence to run a Stall No.6 on 5th February 1990 at a licence fee of Rs.5485/- per annum.

(3.) According to the petitioners, the licence fees have been enhanced retrospectively from 1990-91 in respective cases by the impugned decision taken in the year 2005. This is arbitrary and in teeth of judgment rendered by Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.4752/2003 (Annexure-3) dated 12th December 200