BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. - (1.) This mandamus-appeal is at the instance of the Union of India and is directed against order dated 10th August, 2001 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship allowed a writ application filed by the respondents and directed the appellant, the railway authority, to issue fresh demand notice for the purpose of realisation of the licence-fees involved therein and to determine the licence-fees in terms of the circular dated August 29, 1995 being Annexure 'X' to the affidavit-in-opposition subject to the condition that enhancement of the licence-fees should be made once in five years and not in every year.
(2.) Being dissatisfied, the railway authority has come up with the present mandamus appeal and at the same time, the writ-petitioners have also filed a cross objection alleging that the learned single Judge ought to have held that the licence fees could not be claimed at the enhanced rate with retrospective effect from an earlier date.
(3.) The facts giving rise to filing of the present mandamus appeal may be precised thus : a) Kalighat Railway Plot Holders Association and its Secretary were the writ-petitioners. By Annexure 'A' to the writ-application, the writ-petitioners have set out the details of the plots of land occupied by the members of the petitioners' association which according to them are held by them on licence under Eastern Railway. Names of 22 licensees with plot numbers were specified in Annexure 'A'. The licensees, according to the writ-petitioners, have been using the said plots of land in connection with the business of various natures, like, dumping of stone chips, coal, cement etc. by raising structures and/or erecting stalls in the plots. b) The main controversy in the writ-application was with regard to the increase of annual licence-fees. The writ-petitioners questioned the notices, 12 in number collectively marked as Annexure 'H', by which the railway authorities have demanded payment of arrear dues in respect of the revised licence-fees with effect from April 1, 1986 up to 1996-97. the licence-fees determined for the respective years have been specified and after deducting the amount paid towards licence fees by the respective licensees for the period from 1986-87 to 1996-97, the balance amount arrived at has been determined and consequently, claimed. c) By those notices, respective licensee was informed that the revision of licence fees had been under active consideration since 1st April, 1986 at the rate of 10 per cent per annum as fixed by the railway board which had already been intimated to the petitioners vide demand notice for the year 1995-96. According to the railway authority, since L.A. Collector had furnished the land-valuation of the area in question and the standing committee of the railways approved the same, the petitioners were required to pay the arrear-dues within the time specified therein. d) According to the writ-petitioners, such revision of licence fees was unjust and was liable to be set aside on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, according to the writ-petitioners such revision of licence fees with retrospective effect from a day ten years ago is totally arbitrary. (e) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the members of the association as shown in Annexure 'A' were not the authorised licensees and only those persons or concerns whose names appeared in the said list against the serial Nos. 2, 3, 6, 8, 10, 15, 19 and 22 were the authorised-licensees whose licences had been renewed and the modified demand notices for payment of the enhanced rate had been served only upon those eight persons. It was, therefore, contended that other members mentioned in the list appearing as Annexure 'A' to the writ application had no locus standi to move the writ application since their licences had been cancelled in the year 1987. (f) It was further contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that the licence fees for the commercial plots had been revised with retrospective effect from 1st April, 1986 as per Railway Board's circular dated August 29,1995 by increasing 10 per cent land valuation every year and by taking 6 per cent thereof as the licence-fees per annum per cottah. As regards the land-valuation, it was asserted in the affidavit-in-opposition that the same was obtained from the Land Acquisition Collector, West Bengal and the standing committee as nominated for the purpose had approved the same and charged the enhanced rate through the demand notices issued to the 14 authorised plot holders in the month of June, 1996. (g) The learned single Judge on consideration of the materials on record came to the conclusion that generally, the policy-decision taken by a State cannot be interfered with in a writ application, but according to His Lordship, if it is found that the policy can be successfully attacked on the ground of mala fide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness, a Writ Court can set aside such policy-decision and in arriving at such conclusion, His Lordship relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ugar Sugar Works Ltd. v. Delhi Administration, reported in 2001 (3) SCC 635 : (AIR 2001 SC 1447). (h) Ultimately, His Lordship came to the conclusion that in the present case, the method of assessment of valuation was arbitrary, inasmuch as, where the State is a tenant, it has issued guidelines with regard to reassessment of original rent of private building hired by the Central Government and there, according to such guidelines, revision should be made after every five years. His Lordship, thus, came to the conclusion that there was no basis for enhancement of 10 per cent of the land-valuation every yeaf in a case where the State was the landlord. His Lordship, accordingly, quashed those demand of enhancements and held that the railway authority should adopt the policy of enhancement of licence-fees not every year but at the interval of every five years.;