K. Padmaia vs. Union Of INDIA

Facts

The petitioner, a licensee for the operation and maintenance of pay and use toilets at KSR Bengaluru City Railway Station, was granted a license for three years at an annual fee of Rs. 84,00,000/-. The petitioner claims that despite paying the full license fee, Respondent No. 2 (Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway) failed to hand over the toilets and bathrooms on Platform No. 1. Consequently, the petitioner made several representations on July 4, 2024, August 14, 2024, and March 11, 2025, requesting a proportionate reduction in the license fee for the unhanded facilities, a refund of the excess fee collected, and cessation of GST collection. These representations remained pending. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to consider these representations and to refrain from taking coercive steps for non-payment of license fees until the representations are decided. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court.

Held

The Court acknowledged the submissions made by both parties. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the High Court disposed of the writ petition. The Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the petitioner's representations dated 04.07.2024, 14.08.2024, and 11.03.2025. The respondents were instructed to provide a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with the law. These orders were to be passed as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the Court's order, and the same were to be communicated to the petitioner. The Court noted that the issue of territorial jurisdiction was addressed by the petitioner's reliance on Article 226(2) and a previous interim order, and the final disposal focused on directing the consideration of representations.

Key Issues

1. Whether this High Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition, considering the respondent authority is located outside its jurisdiction, as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of their representations dated 04.07.2024, 14.08.2024, and 11.03.2025, concerning the reduction of license fee and non-collection of GST, within a stipulated time frame? Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that the High Court has jurisdiction as per Article 226(2) of the Constitution of India because the petitioner is a resident of Hyderabad and amounts were remitted from Hyderabad. The petitioner relied on an interim order passed by the same High Court in W.P.No.24438 of 2024, which affirmed jurisdiction based on the cause of action arising within the territory, even if the respondent's seat is outside. The petitioner restricted the prayer to seeking a direction for the disposal of their pending representations. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents contended that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction as Respondent No. 2 is the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division, Bengaluru.