Ravi Jain vs. Union Of INDIA And 2 Others

Held

The Court acknowledged the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the license fee within fifteen days and the remaining amount in two equal installments, due on 10.09.2022 and 10.11.2022. The Court granted this concession, stating that in case of default in timely deposit, the relaxation would cease, and the respondents could proceed according to law. However, if the deposit was made as per the schedule, no coercive steps would be taken against the petitioner in the meantime. The Court did not explicitly decide on the correctness of the license fee calculation rate or the consideration of the petitioner's objections, effectively disposing of the petition based on the agreed payment schedule. The core issue of the rate dispute was implicitly set aside by the petitioner's statement to forego his objection.

Facts

The petitioner, Ravi Jain, challenged a notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Divisional Engineer (Head Quarter), Northern Central Railway, Agra. The notice demanded arrears of license fee for a piece of land in his possession for the period 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2022, amounting to Rs. 1,34,48,194/- plus GST of Rs. 24,20,674.92. Failure to deposit by 15.07.2022 would lead to vacation proceedings and forfeiture of his first right of refusal in future auctions, with the shop liable to be sealed. The petitioner contended that the license fee was incorrectly calculated at 10% of the property cost instead of the stipulated 6%. He had filed objections with the Railway Authorities, which he claimed were not considered. The Court, on a previous date, inquired about the petitioner's willingness to deposit 25% of the arrears within fifteen days, to which the petitioner agreed, proposing to pay the balance in installments over six months. The Railways, however, declined this proposal, insisting on lump-sum payment.

Key Issues

1. Whether the notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Divisional Engineer (Head Quarter), Northern Central Railway, Agra, demanding arrears of license fee and GST is arbitrary and illegal, particularly concerning the rate of calculation and the lack of consideration of the petitioner's objections? (Question of law and fact, turning on the terms of the license agreement and relevant railway rules). Petitioner's Arguments: - The license fee was calculated at an incorrect rate (10% instead of 6% of the property cost) as per the applicable rules and regulations. - His objections regarding the calculation rate were not considered by the Railway Authorities. Respondent's (Union of India and Others) Arguments: - The respondent admitted that no prior notice was issued to the petitioner for the arrears of license fee over several years. - The respondent declined the petitioner's proposal for installment payments, insisting on lump-sum deposit, and stated that the shop would be sealed if the full amount was not paid.