Ram Dour Barui @ Ram Deo Barui And Others vs. Union Of INDIA And Ors.

Facts

The writ petitioners, operating vending units ('Dallas') at Sealdah Railway Station, challenged a demand for licence fees and occupation charges, including GST, amounting to Rs. 11,00,336/-. This sum was demanded for the period from February 27, 2017, to February 26, 2020, based on a communication dated January 27, 2022. The petitioners argued that the demanded amount was excessive and unaffordable for their small-scale business. They initially claimed a right of renewal under the 2010 catering policy, which was replaced by the 2017 policy, lacking renewal provisions. The railways contended that the tariff was developed based on lawful considerations by a SAG committee, citing bids for similar units at Howrah Station ranging from Rs. 22,00,000/- to Rs. 54,00,000/- annually, indicating significant income generation potential.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitioners cannot claim any benefit under the non-existent 2010 policy, as it has been replaced by the 2017 policy. Regarding the affordability of the demanded fees, the Court found that the railways cannot be faulted for developing the tariff, which was based on lawful considerations and prepared by a SAG committee. The Court noted that bids for similar units at Howrah Station ranged from Rs. 22,00,000/- to Rs. 54,00,000/-, indicating that the petitioners' claim of inability to pay due to poverty was not sustainable. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Ors. Vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association & Anr. and a Division Bench decision of the same Court in Bindu Devi Vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways & Ors., the Court concluded that the grievances of the writ petitioners could not be entertained. The writ petition was dismissed.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitioners are entitled to claim renewal of their vending units under the now-superseded catering policy of 2010? - Petitioners' argument: The petitioners initially claimed a right of renewal based on the 2010 catering policy. - Revenue's argument: The 2010 policy has been replaced by the 2017 policy, which does not provide for renewal of vending units. 2. Whether the demanded licence fees, occupation charges, and GST are excessive and exorbitant, rendering them unaffordable for the petitioners? - Petitioners' argument: The petitioners, as vendors of small items, cannot afford the demanded sum, which they consider excessive. - Revenue's argument: The tariff is based on lawful considerations, developed by a SAG committee, and supported by high bids received for similar vending units at Howrah Station, indicating substantial income potential from such operations.