IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WA.No. 2068 of 2007()
1. SUNNY ABRAHAM, DEALER,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE RAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
... Respondent
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY,
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP (SR.)
For Respondent :SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble the Chief Justice MR.S.R.BANNURMATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice KURIAN JOSEPH
Dated :25/03/2009
O R D E R
S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
W.A.No. 2068 OF 2007
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this, the 25th day of March, 2009
JUDGMENT
Kurian Joseph, J.
Appellant is the writ petitioner. The issue pertains to the
steps taken by the Railways for enhancement of the licence fee
in respect of the premises occupied by the writ petitioner.
Though the case has a chequered history, we do not think that
we should go into those aspects in detail. It would be
sufficient for the present purpose to refer to Ext.P6 judgment
dated 23.03.89. The licence fee applicable to the petitioner
was Rs.874.86. That was sought to be revised to Rs.1,65,221/-
with effect from 1981. That gave rise to various litigations
including a Civil suit. Finally, this court in Ext.P6 judgment
directed the Railways to consider the matter afresh with notice
WA No.2068/07
-:2:-
to the petitioner and thus Ext.P7 order was passed by the General
Manager. That order was under challenge in the writ petition.
Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence the
appeal.
2. Though the learned Senior counsel advanced several
contentions vehemently, we do not think that we should refer to
those contentions since it cannot be disputed that the agreement
provided for revision of licence fee. The land measuring 12,703
Sq. Ft was occupied by the writ petitioner ever since 1972. It was
vacated only in the year 1988. Going by the details as furnished in
Ext.P7, we find that for the first time steps for enhancement was
taken only in the year 1981. That was intimated only in July 1983
as per Ext.P3. One of the main contentions taken by the learned
Senior counsel is that the appellant is not given advance notice in
the matter of revision. Yet another contention is on the rate. As
far as the rate is concerned, we do not think that this Court would
WA No.2068/07
-:3:-
be in a position to comment on the same since fixation is made
having due regard to the extent and location. As far as the date of
effect of revision is concerned, the General Manager by Ext.P6
order has taken the stand that the first intimation was given to the
petitioner regarding revision as per Ext.P3 dated 14.07.83 and
hence the revision would be effective from 15.01.84. But the
intimation, i.e. Ext.P3 dated 14.07.83, is on the revision already
effected. Be that as it may, as per Ext.P5 we find that the writ
petitioner himself had submitted a representation agreeing for
revision, of course to reasonable limits. We have already found
that licence fee already fixed is reasonable. Ext.P5 letter is dated
09.01.84. So, we are of the view that, six months from Ext.P5 can
be taken as the date for the revision. Accordingly, Ext.P7 would
stand partly modified to the effect that the revision of licence fee
would be effective from 10.07.84. The judgment under appeal is
modified to the above extent. The appellant is permitted to pay the
WA No.2068/07
-:4:-
balance in five monthly instalments starting from the month of
April 2009.
The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above.
S.R. Bannurmath,
Chief Justice.
Kurian Joseph,
Judge.
ttb