Ms Santosh Stone Industries Through Its One Of The Partners Smt Shanti Singh vs. Eastern Railway Through Its Divisional Railway Manager

Held

The Court held that the petitioner's deposit of the license fee for the year 2019-20 only entitled them to avail the benefit of the license up to 31.03.2020. Since the impugned cancellation order was passed on 11.08.2020, by which date the petitioner admittedly had no right to continue occupying the plot from 1st April 2020 onwards, the order passed by the authority did not require any interference. The Court noted that the renewal of the license was subject to the execution of a fresh agreement, a copy of which was not produced by the petitioner, indicating it had not been executed. Therefore, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the cancellation order.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Santosh Stone Industries, a partnership firm, filed a writ petition challenging a letter dated 11.08.2020 issued by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, which cancelled the license granted to the petitioner to use and occupy plot no.1 at Sawai Siding of Sakrigali Station. The petitioner had been occupying the plot since 1986 under various agreements, with the license being renewed periodically upon deposit of annual license fees. The renewal for 2019-20, subject to a fee of Rs. 11038/- plus GST of Rs. 1987/-, was deposited by the petitioner on 18.10.2019. The petitioner also possessed valid licenses from other government departments to run its business. The petitioner sought quashing of the cancellation order and restoration of the license.

Key Issues

1. Whether the cancellation of the license granted to the petitioner to use and occupy plot no.1 at Sawai Siding of Sakrigali Station by the Divisional Commercial Manager, Eastern Railway, Malda Division, vide letter dated 11.08.2020, is bad in law and liable to be quashed. Petitioner's Contention: The petitioner argued that the cancellation order was bad in law because they had deposited the license fee for the year 2019-20, including GST, and possessed valid licenses from other departments. They contended that the action taken by the respondents was prejudicial to their interests. Respondents' Contention: The respondents (Eastern Railway) did not explicitly file a counter-argument in the provided text. However, the Court's reasoning implies that the renewal of the license was conditional upon the execution of a fresh agreement, which had not been completed by the petitioner.