- (1.) These writ petitions raise common points of facts and law and, are therefore being decided by this common judgment and order. At the very outset it is relevant to mention that each of the writ petitioners is a plot holder under the Railways, particularly Eastern Railway at Ballygunge Railway Siding (hereinafter referred to for short as the plot holders or the said plots or only the plots). The plot holders claim to be in occupation of their respective plots on the basis of licences granted in their favour by the Railways on the terms and conditions stated therein. Sri Subrata Bose, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the plot holders argues that the Railways have renewed the licences of the writ petitioners each year and, have continued to regularly accept the licence fees. The plot holders claim to be in possession of the receipts granted by the Railways in respect of such licence fees. Sri Bose submits that up to the year 1996-97 the Railways regularly demanded licence fees fixed at the old rates and such licence fees were faithfully paid by the plot holders. However, by a purported Memo dated 21st January, 1997 the Railways informed the plot holders that the licence fees have been enhanced by 10% annually retrospectively with effect from 1986. Such 10% enhancement, Sri Bose strongly argues, is exorbitant, arbitrary and, cannot be under any circumstances imposed retrospectively.
(2.) It is the further submission of Sri Bose that the Memo dated 21st January, 1997 fails to disclose any reason or any policy behind enhancement of the licence fees. Similarly, no enhancement of licence fees related to enhancement of land value can be discerned from the Memo dated 21st January, 1997. Aggrieved by the terms of the Memo dated 21st of January, 1997, the plot holders through their Association challenged the same by way of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India registered as WP 15769(W) of 1998. By orders dated 31st of August, 1998 and 22nd of September, 1998 an Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia, direct that each of the petitioners shall pay double the amount which has been paid for the period 1995-96 and, such payment must be made by 17th of October, 1998. The Hon'ble Single Bench was further pleased to clarify that in the event the payment is made within the date fixed as directed, the Railways shall not enforce the enhanced liability. Sri Bose submits that each of the plot holders associated with WP 15769(W) of 1998 as petitioners complied with the terms of the solemn orders of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 31st of August, 1998 and 22nd of September, 1998 by depositing double the amount within the stipulated date. Therefore, the petitioners became entitled to protection under the orders dated 31st of August, 1998 and 22nd of September, 1998 from enforcement of any enhanced liability. Sri Bose argues that the orders of the Hon'ble Single Bench have attained finality and the Railways have continued to accept the payment as directed above by the Hon'ble Single Bench for the period between 1995-96 up to 2009-10. Strangely however, after 2009- 10 the Railways refused to accept the payments as directed by the Hon'ble Single Bench and for such refusal the petitioners cannot be faulted. Sri Bose therefore formulates the next point that since the licence fees were duly paid by the plot holders and accepted for a prolonged period of time by the Railways, the Railways are now precluded from enhancing such licence fees. However, the notice for enhancement of licence fees dated 21st January, 1997 which was the subject matter of the writ petition being WP 15769(W) of 1998 was followed up by the Railways by a further notice dated 25th of August, 2004 once again raising the licence fees to 10% annually instead of 6% annually under the terms of the original licence and, such payment was payable retrospectively with effect from 1995-96.
(3.) Once again challenging the exorbitant and arbitrary enhancement of the licence fees by the notice dated 25th of August, 2004 as well as the subsequent notice dated 18th October, 2004, the plot holders filed a fresh batch of writ petitions. Sri Bose particularly points out to the fact that departing from the terms of the original licence as granted by the Railways to each of the plot holders including the present petitioners and, without entering into any agreement with the plot holders as envisaged under the terms of the original licence, this time by the notices dated 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004, the Railways demanded that upon the failure of the plot holders to pay the enhanced licence fees, the plot holders were called upon to quit and vacate. The notices dated 25th August, 2004 and 18th October, 2004 were once again challenged before an Hon'ble Single Bench which was pleased to, inter alia, direct that in the event the petitioners deposit 50% of the amount claimed on and by 5th November, 2004 they shall be entitled to a stay on the order of eviction. The order dated 29th October, 2004 of the Hon'ble Single Bench was challenged in appeal before an Hon'ble Division Bench by the petitioners. By order dated 5th November, 2004, the Hon'ble Division Bench was pleased to intervene in the order of the Hon'ble Single Bench dated 29th October, 2004. Sri Bose submits that during the course of hearing of the writ petitions filed by the plot holders in the year 2004, the Railways handed over a copy of the purported guidelines of the Railway Board dated 24th of March, 2004. It therefore became necessary for the plot holders to challenge such guidelines by way of a fresh writ petition being WP 6034(W) of 2005.;