Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) This writ petition has been taken out by the apex body of the Fishermen's Co-operative, who gets patronage of the Central Government with grant of Rs. 35 lacs and also of the State of West Bengal by its Fishery Department. The petitioner No. 1 set up 12 retail outlets for the fish products at 12 several places in the city of Kolkata in or about 1993 with the permission and licence being granted by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (then Calcutta Municipal Corporation) being the respondent No. 1 to occupy its part of the land and to run the business.
(2.) The respondent No. 1 granted licence to use and occupy portion of the land upon payment of fees at the rate of Rs. 5/- per sq. ft per year initially. The petitioner No. 1 accordingly on licence being granted, with its permission built structure for 12 numbers of stalls and kiosks. One of such structures was built at Chetla Park, in the city.
(3.) It appears from the records, in the aforesaid stalls;' unemployed youths were engaged to run business on no profit-no-loss basis. This business came to be source of the livelihood. There was no dispute between the petitioners and the respondent No. I until 4th of July, 2001, when the respondent No. 1 communicated to the Managing Director of the petitioner No. 1 for the increase of licence fee of all the stalls at the rate of Rs. 60 per sq. ft. per year for the next five years, with effect from 2nd June, 1997. However, the aforesaid increase was sought to be effective, so far as Chetla Park outlet is concerned, with effect from 13th October, 1998. It appears various correspondences were exchanged between and/or on behalf of both the parties. The Hon'ble Minister of Fishery Department also made request to the Mayor of the respondent No. 1 not to increase the licence fee. It appears that the issue with regard to the increase of licence fee is yet to be resolved. The Mayor did not agree to budge a single inch from the decision to increase the licence fee. It appears that substantial portion of the licence fee was and still is remaining due and payable as per the enhanced rate. It does not appear from the record, either, that licence was revoked and/or terminated notwithstanding the alleged non-payment of the licence fees at enhanced rate.;