IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 7609 of 2007(E)
1. S.SANTHI,PROPRIETRIX,APPOLLO PUBILCITY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY,DIVISIONAL OFFICE,
... Respondent
2. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL
For Petitioner :SRI.BECHU KURIAN THOMAS
For Respondent :SRI.JAMES KURIAN, SC, RAILWAYS
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :14/10/2009
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
================
W.P.(C) NO. 7609 OF 2007 (E)
=====================
Dated this the14th day of October, 2009
J U D G M E N T
The prayer sought in this writ petition is to quash Ext.P2 and
to declare that the petitioner is not bound to pay and that the
respondents are not entitled to demand any amount as rental
charges other than what has been agreed upon in Ext.P1 series or
other contracts.
2. Petitioner submits that she had taken on rent spaces
available in the premises of the Southern Railway for display of
advertisement boards at rates as mutually agreed in Ext.P1 series
of documents. It is stated that accordingly she canvassed
business and sold the space to her customers. However, long
thereafter, she was issued Ext.P2 dated 13th September, 2006
informing that rates have been revised by 10% from 1/10/2005 to
31/3/2006 and by 15% from 01/04/2006 onwards. On that basis,
she was called upon to remit the arrears. That was followed by
Exts.P3 and P4 demanding the amount and threatening that non
payment will result in coercive action. It was thereupon the writ
petition was filed.
WPC 7609/07
:2 :
3. Evidently, Ext.P1 series of documents reflect concluded
contracts between parties, and if so, unless there is an agreement
between the parties enabling revision of rates with retrospective
effect, there cannot be any revision of rates, muchless on a
unilateral basis.
4. Nothing has been placed on record by the Railways to
justify such retrospective levy. If that be so, the revision of rates
effected by Ext.P2 referred to above cannot be made applicable
to period prior to 13th September, 2006, the date of Ext.P2 or
concluded contracts. If so, the demand as per Exts.P3 and P4
requiring the petitioner to remit the differential amount
consequent on Ext.P2 cannot be sustained. Exts.P3 and P4
therefore will stand set aside.
Writ petition is allowed as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp