Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 374 (CAL)

S. K. Chatterjee & Sons v. Union of India

2001-06-29

Barin Ghosh

body2001
JUDGMENT Barin Ghosh, J.: The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993, was filed by M/s. S. K. Chatterjee & Sons, M/s. B.P. Chakraborty & Sons, M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons and Mr. Apter Hossain Khan challenging the revision of licence fee as communicated by the letter dated 29th March, 1993. 2. The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993, was filed by M/s. T.K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushil Kumar Biswas seeking self-same relief as was prayed for in C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993. 3. By the letter dated 29th March, 1993 the petitioners in the said writ petitions were informed that the Tea Stall Contract entered by the Railway Administration with the petitioners has expired on 30th September, 1992. It was also indicated that as per the extent Rules the contract may be renewed for the period of five years subject to the petitioners' acceptance and payment of the revised yearly licence fee. The revised licence fee payable by the petitioners individually had also been indicated in the said letter. It was also indicated that such revised licence fee will be effective from 1st October, 1992. By that letter the petitioners were requested to pay the licence fee for one year and the security deposit to the tune of half of the revised yearly licence fee and to attend the office of the Railway Administration by 30th April, 1993 for execution of Tea Stall Agreement afresh for a period of five years. It was also mentioned that if the deposit is not made, it would be presumed that the petitioners are not willing to accept the Tea Stall Contract on revised rate of yearly licence fee and action towards termination of the contract will be initiated without any further reference. 4. It was contended in the said writ petitions that the revised yearly licence fee is exorbitant. It was also contended that there was no rationale in fixing such fee. It was stated that licence fee of Rs. 4364 was enhanced to Rs. 13,500 in one case and in other cases from Rs. 2579 to Rs. 11,500, from Rs. 2184 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 534 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 1499 to Rs. 9,000, from Rs. 825 to Rs. 9,500 and from Rs. 681 to Rs. 1,600. 5. It was stated that licence fee of Rs. 4364 was enhanced to Rs. 13,500 in one case and in other cases from Rs. 2579 to Rs. 11,500, from Rs. 2184 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 534 to Rs. 10,500, from Rs. 1499 to Rs. 9,000, from Rs. 825 to Rs. 9,500 and from Rs. 681 to Rs. 1,600. 5. The writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993, was moved ex parte on 29th April, 1993 whereas the writ petition, registered as C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993 was moved ex parte on 30th April, 1993 when interim orders were passed directing the parties to maintain status quo until 30th May, 1993. From the records it does not appear that the said interim orders were extended subsequent thereto. But, however, from an order dated 8th September, 1999 it appears that the interim orders were continued. On 15t March, 2000 both the writ petitions were dismissed for default. Subsequently by an order dated 13th March, 2000 the writ petitions were restored to the file without restoration of the interim orders. Subsequent thereto M/s. S.K. Chatterjee & Sons, M/s. B.P. Chakraborty & Sons and Mr. Apter Hossain Khan paid their outstanding dues on account of licence fees at the new enhanced rate and executed agreement with the Railway Administration. M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons, M/s. T. K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushi Kumar Biswas, however, did not do any such thing. In the premises a decision was taken to evict the said petitioners. That decision is contained in a latter dated 20th May, 2000 of the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur and addressed to the Station Managers of the concerned stations. In those circumstances M/s. N.K. Mondal & Sons, M/s. T.K. Mondal & Sons and Shri Sushil Kumar Biswas filed the writ petition, registered as W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000, whereby and under they challenged the said decision. It appears from the said decision that it was decide a to takeover the possession of the Tea Stalls of the said petitioners and to keep the same under lock and key till further decision upon taking an inventory of the articles, if any, lying in the Tea Stalls in question. 6. It appears from the said decision that it was decide a to takeover the possession of the Tea Stalls of the said petitioners and to keep the same under lock and key till further decision upon taking an inventory of the articles, if any, lying in the Tea Stalls in question. 6. On 7th July, 2000 W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 was moved upon notice when the said decision was stayed and the Railway Administration was directed to hand over possession of the Tea Stalls in question to the petitioners in W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 with a direction upon the said petitioners to pay licence fee at the rate of Rs. 4000 per annum from July, 2000. A further direction was given upon the Railway Administration to serve a show cause notice upon the petitioners proposing to enhance the licence fee and to give a hearing to the petitioners to such proposal and thereupon to take a decision with reasons. There is nothing on record from where it can be ascertained whether any such show cause notice was issued and if so, whether any decision has been taken after giving hearing to the petitioners in W.P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000. There appears, however, to be no dispute that the said petitioners have been given back possession but then there is nothing on record that the petitioners have paid or/are paying licence fee at the rate of Rs. 4000 per annum. 7. There is no dispute that the petitioners, namely, N.K. Mondal & Sons, T. K. Mondal & Sons and Sushil Kumar Biswas, are in occupation of Railway property. There is also no dispute that they were inducted in such property as licensees. There is also no dispute that the terms and conditions of such licences were contained in the agreements entered by the said petitioners individually with the Railway Administration and such agreements recorded grant of licence for a period of five years and that such licences in terms of the agreements inter se the parties expired on 1st October, 1992. Further there is no dispute that the extent Rules provide that the licences may be renewed for a further period of five years. Further there is no dispute that the extent Rules provide that the licences may be renewed for a further period of five years. By the notices impugned in C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993 and C. O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993 the Railway Administration desired to renew the subject licences provided the petitioners agreeing to pay the enhanced licence fee and enter into a fresh agreement for a period of five years. The petitioners are not challenging the right of the Railway Administration to enhance licence fee for the renewed period of licence after the licence has come to an end, nor are challenging the right of the Railway Administration to keep such renewal fixed for a further period of five years and to call upon the petitioners to execute an agreement to that effect. What the petitioners are contending in C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993 and C. O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993, as stated above, is that the claim for the revised licence fee is too exorbitant and too irrational. In W. P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 the said writ petitioners are challenging the right of the Railway Administration to evict the petitioners of their possession without due process of law by locking out the petitioners from their Tea Stalls. 8. Therefore, the one and the only question in the first two writ petitions was whether the increase effected by the letter dated 29th March, 1993 was justified? The case of the Railway Administration in the affidavits filed to oppose C. O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993 and C. O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993 are, inter alia, as follows: "C. Letter No. 82-TG.III/600/1 dated 21.4.1984 issued by the Railway Board, New Delhi inter alia lays down that the licence fee for catering/vending contracts should be levied and/or determined upto a maximum of 5% of the assessed sales turn over depending upon the local conditions such as passenger traffic of the station, the quantum of sales, and generally, the profitability of the catering/vending units. Wherever the existing licence fee is below 3%, it should be thoroughly reviewed and brought up, wherever warranted. Wherever the existing licence fee is below 3%, it should be thoroughly reviewed and brought up, wherever warranted. D. In suppression of the instructions contained in para-1 of the said letter No. 78/TG.III/600/1 dated 21.4.1984 regarding fixation of rent and licence fees for catering contracts, Ministry of Railways by letter No. 80/TG.III/600/11 dated 2.1.1987 have decided as under:- a) Railway should recover only one lump sum 'licence fee' from the contractors, which should cover the existing elements of rent as well as licence fee•. b) These two charges are thus merged into one lumpsum fee. The lumpsum licence fee should be fixed by a committee of three Officers not below the rank of Senior Scales. c) While fixing this lumpsum fee, the committee should keep in view all relevant factors which, inter alia, should include:- i) Existing rent and licence fee. ii) Number of Vendors, salesman/workers/bearers allowed. iii) Importance of the station from the point of view of passenger traffic and demand for items sold. iv) Location of the stall at station v) Variation of passenger traffic. vi) Number and nature of items permitted to be sold. vii) Size of the stall/refreshment from structure etc. viii) In case of pantry car/dining car, importance of the train by which the pantry car/dining car is attached and the number of meals which are required to be served during the journey. ix) In case of pantry car/dining car, it should be considered if the contractor is to be allowed cooking of meals inside the pantry car or is required to pickup casseroles/thalis from the station. d) Normally, the lumpsum licence fee should be determined at the time of the contract or at the time of the renewal of the contract. The same should be indicated in the advertisement in the case of a new contract. In the case of renewal, the lumpsum fee should be fixed three months before the date of renewal and advised to the contractor so that the contractor could decide whether to continue the contractor or not. e) In the case of existing contracts, recovery of licence fee and rent as per existing rules may continue till such time renewal is due. However, the zonal Railways may fix the lumpsum fee even during the pendency of the contract with the consent of both the parties. e) In the case of existing contracts, recovery of licence fee and rent as per existing rules may continue till such time renewal is due. However, the zonal Railways may fix the lumpsum fee even during the pendency of the contract with the consent of both the parties. f) So far as tenure of the catering/vending contracts are concerned, it will continue to be the same as mentioned in para-2 of Board's letter under reference. g) These instructions will come into effect immediately. h) These instructions are issued with the concurrence of the Finance and Land Management Directorate of the Ministry. I crave leave to refer to the said letter dated 02.1.1987 at the time of hearing. E. By letter No. 91/TG.III/600/15 dt. 06.1.1992 new catering policy on Indian Railways was issued by the Railway Board. It appears, therefrom that the ban imposed on allotment/finalisation of all types of licences as referred to above in Board's letter No. 91/TG.III/640/4 dated 9th September, 1991 was lifted and the zonal Railways were advised to implement the new policy regarding privatisation and allotment of catering/vending licence as laid down in the said letter dated 6.1.1992. The said letter dated 6.1.1992, inter alia, lays down the new catering policy regarding licence fee, tenure of contract and renewal and such policy are as follows:- i) Licence Fee: Each successful licensee will be required to pay the licence fee to the Railway. Lumpsum licence fee shall be fixed in terms of Board's instructions No. 82/TG.III/600/11 dated 2nd January, 1987. ii) Tenure of the contract: The normal tenure of the contract shall be 5 years. iii) Renewal: After expiry of 5 years, the licence can be further extended subject to the performance of the licensee being satisfactory during the previous agreemental period. The decision regarding renewal shall be taken based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee and shall consist of 3 S.A.G. Officers, in case of large/important units and at least senior scale level for other units. I crave leave to refer to the said letter dated 6.1.1992 at the time of hearing. F. In the instant cases lumpsum licence fee as fixed pursuant to Board's instructions, referred to in letter dated 2nd January, 1987 above, has been followed in the year 1992 and there has been no vital change in the matter of determination of licence fee since then. F. In the instant cases lumpsum licence fee as fixed pursuant to Board's instructions, referred to in letter dated 2nd January, 1987 above, has been followed in the year 1992 and there has been no vital change in the matter of determination of licence fee since then. I further submit that the South Eastern Railway administration vide its letter No. TAC/Com/Policy/Pt.XI/A/1976 dt. 19.6.1992 intimated all the senior Divisional Commercial Superintendents including the respondent No.6 that 'd) Licence fees is to be revised for all the contracts and review should immediately be taken so that licence fee of all the existing contracts can be revised with effect from 1.10.1992.' Accordingly, the same is uniformly followed by the South Eastern Railway Administration in respect of all the tea and snacks stall contracts within the jurisdiction. I crave leave to refer to the said letter dated 19.6.1992 at the time of hearing. 5. The chart annexed hereto being Annexure 'M' of this affidavit in short stipulates the entire facts of each petitioner individually and separately. In this connection, I submit that as per the directives and/or guidelines issued by the Railway Board, the cases of renewal of contract were processed and/or revised by the Railway Administration on the basis of sale potential and existing rent. The annual sale of Tea and Snacks stalls of the respective Railway stations was worked out on the basis of daily average sale on the dates referred to in the said chart and the lumpsum licence fee @ 5% of the annual sale was determined by the committee consisting of three Senior Scales Officers, constituted by the Divisional Railway Manager, Kharagpur. It is noted in this connection that while fixing the licence fee the relevant factors referred to in para-4 of the letter dated 2.1.1987 issued by Railway Board was taken into account by the said three Senior Scale Railway Officers and the licence fee was fixed @ 5% of the assessed sales turn over as referred to in the letter dated 21.4.1984 issued by the Railway Board. It is crystal clear in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Railway Administration acted lawfully and bona fide and pursuant to the directives issued by the Railway Board. As such, the question of imposition of exorbitant amount of licence fee and/or arbitrary revision of licence fee as alleged does not and cannot arise at all. It is crystal clear in the facts and circumstances of the case that the Railway Administration acted lawfully and bona fide and pursuant to the directives issued by the Railway Board. As such, the question of imposition of exorbitant amount of licence fee and/or arbitrary revision of licence fee as alleged does not and cannot arise at all. The said chart is annexed hereto marked with the letter 'M' and I beg to refer to and rely upon the letters and documents mentioned in Annexure 'M' to this affidavit.' Annexure 'M', referred to above, in so far as columns 4, 5 and 6 thereof, namely, guidelines followed, the basis of renewal of licence fee and licence fee fixed by Railway Administration, are as follows: 4. Guidelines followed: Railway Board's letter No. 82/TG.III/600/1 dated 21.4.84 & No. 82/TG.III/600/11 dated 2.1.87 and No. 91/TG.III/600/15 dated 6.1.92 read with CCS (Catg) letter No. TAC/Con/Policy Pt. XIA 1776 dated 19-6-92 mentioned in Para-4 of the affidavit. 5. The basis of renewal of licence fee: Sale proceedings of the tea and snacks stall dated 9.11.1992 & 10.11.1992 jointly taken by the Section Officer(Accts) and Senior Catg. Inspector and the same was duly signed by the representative of the petitioner No. 1. 6. Licence fee fixed by Railway Administration: Licence fee fixed by a Committee consisting of three Railway Officers viz. DOM, DAO and Sr. DMO(H)." 9. After filing of the affidavit-in-opposition in C.O. No. 18940 (W) of 1993 a Supplementary affidavit was filed on behalf of the Railway Administration in the said writ petition. With that calculation sheet as to how the Railway Administration has fixed the licence fee of the petitioners in accordance with law had been annexed for proper adjudication of the matter. In that, in relation to M/s. N. K. Mondal & Sons the following statement was annexed: "Statement showing the sale potential of tea stall contract at the station 'ULUBERIA' conducted jointly by Sr. So (A)/Cn/Kgp 7 Sr. CHEL/Kgp on 08/10/92 & 09/10/92 Sl. No. Name of the Item Rate Sale as on 8.10.92 Sale as on 9.10.92 Average sale value Name of the contractor & Remittance particular. Rs. ps. quantity Rs. ps. quantity Rs. ps. Rs. ps. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teain cup 75Ml Snacks & Sweets Singara Veg. So (A)/Cn/Kgp 7 Sr. CHEL/Kgp on 08/10/92 & 09/10/92 Sl. No. Name of the Item Rate Sale as on 8.10.92 Sale as on 9.10.92 Average sale value Name of the contractor & Remittance particular. Rs. ps. quantity Rs. ps. quantity Rs. ps. Rs. ps. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Teain cup 75Ml Snacks & Sweets Singara Veg. Chop Rosogulla Amriti Lady Cany Bakery Thin Arrowroot Biscuit Cream Biscuit Britannia Top Bread (100g.) Cigarettes Charminar (fl.) Charms Wills Flt. Gold Flake Pan 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 5 9 2 0 75 50 60 00 75 60 25 50 40 00 00 00 00 00 50 112 82 26 21 25 12 245 pc 22pc 81pc 89pc 4 pkt. 18 plt. 8 pkt. 9 Bnd 42 Pc. 84 41 15 21 18 7 103 61 11 32 89 193 16 90 72 18 206 21 00 00 60 00 75 20 55 25 00 40 00 65 00 00 00 00 60 00 96 71 19 26 23 9 182 pc 27 pc 77 pc 68 pc 5 pkt. 20 pkt 6 pkt. 8 Bnd 52 Pc. 72 35 11 26 17 5 95 45 13 30 68 157 20 100 54 16 205 26 00 50 40 00 25 40 55 50 50 80 00 80 00 00 00 00 90 00 78 99 175 206 23 00 55 72 25 50 M/s. N. K. Mondal & Sons Contractor Rly. Stn. ULUBERIA deposited licence fee for the period from 01/7/92 to 31/12/92 amounting to Rs. 1092/- vide Money Receipt No. 980300 Dt. 01/7/92. 10. No such affidavit has been filed in C.O. No. 18942 (W) of 1993 and accordingly no such statement has been produced in relation to M/s. T. K. Mondal and Sons and Shri Sushil Kumar Biswas. 11. From the above statement showing the sale potential of the tea stall of M/s. N. K. Mondal & Sons it appears that the average total daily sale is of Rs. 583.02. Five per cent of that would be Rs. 29.151. Calculating the same for 365 days would amount to Rs. 10,640.115. The revised licence fee of Ws. N. K. Mondal & Sons has been fixed at Rs. 10,500. 12. 583.02. Five per cent of that would be Rs. 29.151. Calculating the same for 365 days would amount to Rs. 10,640.115. The revised licence fee of Ws. N. K. Mondal & Sons has been fixed at Rs. 10,500. 12. As it appears from the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the Railway Administration, in 1984 the Railway Board decided that determination of licence fee should have nexus with the profitability of the vending units. It thus directed that such assessment be made upon local conditions such as passenger traffic of the station, the quantum of sales and generally the profitability of the vending units. It, however, restricted the quantum of such licence fee upto a maximum of 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over but then directed that such sales turn over must depend upon profitability of the .vending unit. In 1987 the decision of 1984 was superceded. A direction was given in 1987 to assess the licence fee having regard to all relevant factors including the existing rent and licence fee, number of vendors, salesman/workers/bearers allowed, importance of the station from the point of view of passenger traffic and demand for items sold, location of the stall at station, variation of passenger traffic, number and nature of items permitted to be sold and size of the stall. In other words the previous decision to asses the licence fee on the basis of profitability was given a go by. The 1984 and the 1987 decisions are such that they are mutually exhaustive and one cannot be followed while the other is being followed. Although in the matter of determining the licence fee in terms of the 1984 decisions, in order to find out the profitability of the vending unit, some of the factors mentioned in the 1987 decision, may be taken note of, but while determining the quantum of licence fee in terms of the decision of 1987, none of the factors mentioned in the 1984 decision can be taken note of. 13. In the affidavit-in-opposition the case of the Railway Administration is that the cases of renewal of contract were processed on the basis of sale potential and existing rent and that the annual sale was worked out on the basis of daily average sale and the lump sum licence fee at the rate of 5 per cent of the annual sale was determined. It is the specific case of the Railway Administration in the affidavit-in-opposition that while fixing the licence fee the relevant factors referred to in the 1987 decision were taken into account and the licence fee was fixed at the rate of 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over as referred to in the 1984 decision. Both of them cannot go side by side. The chart relied on do not show that the 1987 factors were even looked at. If the 1984 decision was superceded, question of fixing the same on the parameters as laid down in the 1984 decision did not arise. 14. In any event the 1984 decision was to find out the profitability of the vending units and there was a mandate not to claim licence fee in excess of 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over. There was no mandate that 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over shall be the licence fee. As appears from the statement showing the sale potential of the tea stall of Ws. N. K. Mondal & Sons, out of the total average daily sale of Rs. 583.02, sale of cigarettes alone accounted for Rs. 206.60, which is more than 1/3rd of the total average daily sale. Cigarettes cannot be sold at a price more than the price mentioned in the cigarette packets. The seller gets a commission on the listed price. It does not appear that any effort was made to ascertain whether the sellers of cigarettes were getting 5 per cent or less than 5 per cent or more than 5 per cent of the listed price of cigarettes as commission. If a person gets 5 per cent or less than 5 per cent or little more than 5 per cent as a commission while selling cigarettes, his profit would be 5 per cent or less than 5 per cent or little more than 5 per cent, i.e., to the extent of the commission received, on the volume of the business. In such circumstances fixation of 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over as licence fee would be totally unjust and irrational. In the case of M/s. N. K. Mondal and Sons, as aforesaid, more than 1/3rd of the assessed sales turn over, is turn over from sales of cigarettes. 15. In such circumstances fixation of 5 per cent of the assessed sales turn over as licence fee would be totally unjust and irrational. In the case of M/s. N. K. Mondal and Sons, as aforesaid, more than 1/3rd of the assessed sales turn over, is turn over from sales of cigarettes. 15. I think in order to word off this unscientific and irrational parameter, in 1987 a decision was taken to completely change the method of assessment, which contemplated not the actual profitability of the vending units but the potential of the earning capacity of the vending units and accordingly the parameters that were directed to be looked at included the number of vendors/salesman/workers/bearers allowed so as to see the potential of the vending unit to reach number of passengers to be catered and the number of passengers likely to be approached by the vending units depend upon the importance of the station from the point of view of the passenger traffic and demand for items sold as well as the location of the stall at station, variation of passenger traffic, number and nature of items permitted to be sold and the size of the stall and accordingly those factors were asked to be looked at. A station catering to more long distance trains will have requirement of more meals and heavy snacks and a stall permitted to cater the same will have greater potential depending upon its location in the station and stall allowed to be engaged. The potential earning capacity is to be assessed for the purpose of fixation of the licence fee. While fixing the licence fee on the basis of new parameters, the existing rent and licence fee, which has already been assessed on the basis of actual profitability, should not be lost sight of. So that the assessment of future earning capacity does not go hay ware, a check and balance has been inserted by asking to consider the existing rent and licence fee also. In other words it requires a reasonable projection of future earning capacity having nexus with the already known present profitability, on the basis whereof the existing licence fee has been fixed. No attempt has been made in the instant case to take into account those factors. In other words it requires a reasonable projection of future earning capacity having nexus with the already known present profitability, on the basis whereof the existing licence fee has been fixed. No attempt has been made in the instant case to take into account those factors. On the other hand an attempt was made to assess the profitability of the vending units by assessing the sales turn over, that too in an unscientific manner as no attempt was made to assess the profitability while selling items having a fixed price tag and the seller getting a mere commission thereon and without ascertaining the quantum of such commission and blindly fixing 5 per cent of such assessed sale, being the maximum permissible limit in terms of the superceded decision, as the licence fee. 16. In opposition to W. P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 the case of the Railway Administration in the affidavit-in-opposition is, inter alia, as follows: "The respondents herein submitted that under section 62(c) of the Easement Act, 1882 the licence is deemed to have been revoked on the expiry of the licence period as per the licence agreement and no notice of revocation is necessary. In the event of non-renewal of licence agreement and/or revocation of licence the position of the original licensee as against the original grantor, i.e. Railway Administration herein, in contravention of provision of section 56 of the Easement Act, 1882 is of a trespasser and that they have no vestige or rights to enter into the premises and/or stall and/or to any of the functions and/or business therein. Inasmuch as there is at present no licence agreement by and between the Railway Administration and the writ petitioners for carrying on business in the tea-snacks stalls at different railway stations and nonest relationship as licensor and licencee between the parties herein, the Railway Administration, i.e., licensor is entitled to deal with the Railway built shop and/or premises as it likes and that the occupation of the writ petitioners absolutely unauthorised, unlawful and without authority of law. Under the such circumstances, the writ petitioners in their respective tea and/or snacks stall at the different Railway stations are tantamount to be unauthorised occupants and trespassers therein." 17. This contention of the Railway Administration is not acceptable. Under the such circumstances, the writ petitioners in their respective tea and/or snacks stall at the different Railway stations are tantamount to be unauthorised occupants and trespassers therein." 17. This contention of the Railway Administration is not acceptable. It is true that upon the licence coming to an end and the same having not been renewed, the petitioners had no right to remain in their respective tea stalls. The petitioners, however, remained in occupation of their tea stalls. Their such occupation may be unauthorised occupation. They may be treated to be trespassers. But then the Railway Administration could not remove an unauthorised occupant or a trespasser without due process of law. For the purpose of removal of such unauthorised occupants or trespassers, the Railway Administration ought to have taken recourse to Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971. They could not simply dispossess the petitioners by locking up their tea stalls. 18. In those circumstances the writ petitions in so far as M/s. N. K. Mondal & Sons, M/s. T. K. Mondal & Sons and Sri Sushil Kumar Biswas are allowed to the extent as follows: (a) The letter dated 29th March, 1993 is quashed. (b) The interim order passed in W. P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 is confirmed and shall continue until; (i) The revised licence fee is assessed strictly in terms of the decision of the Ministry of Railways contained in letter No. 82/TG.III/600/11 dated 2.1.1987; or (ii) Until an eviction order is passed against the said petitioners in terms of the provisions contained in the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 upon the said petitioners refusing to pay licence fee assessed in terms of the decision of the Ministry of Railways contained in letter No. 82/TG.III/600/11 dated 2.1.1987. 19. It is made clear that the said petitioners shall be given appropriate adjustment for the sums paid by them in terms of the interim order passed in W. P. No. 7531 (W) of 2000 towards the licence fee to be assessed in terms of the decision of the Ministry of Railways communicated by the letter No. 82/TG.III 600/11 dated 2.1.1987. 20. This disposes of the writ petitions. 21. There shall be no order as to costs.