Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 1. Though counter affidavit has been filed in both the matters by the respondents-railways, but there is no representation on their behalf today when the matter is taken up. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2119/2006 and in W.P.(C) No.2084/2006 both have assailed notices dated 22nd February 2006 (Annexure-5) and 27th December 2005 (Annexure-1) respectively whereunder a demand of revised licence fee from 5th February 1990 to 31st March 2006 and from 5th February 1991 to 31st March 2006 respectively in case of both the petitioners have been raised. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2119/2006 has also challenged the revised bill of licence fee for the aforesaid period as contained in letter dated 11th June 2005 (Annexure-2). Petitioner no.1 has been granted licence to run a Stall No.16 at railway station, Dhanbad in the year 1990 with a licence fee fixed at Rs.4757/-per annum. Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.2084/2006 has also been granted licence to run a Stall No.6 on 5th February 1990 at a licence fee of Rs.5485/-per annum. 2. According to the petitioners, the licence fees have been enhanced retrospectively from 1990-91 in respective cases by the impugned decision taken in the year 2005. This is arbitrary and in teeth of judgment rendered by Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.4752/2003 (Annexure-3) dated 12th December 2003. 3. Respondents in their counter affidavit have taken the plea in the respective writ petitions that the first petitioner Bhuneshwar Thakur has himself deposited the licence fee on 1.4.2000 for the period 1994-95 as per Annexure-1 to the writ petition, though it is required to be deposited every year, otherwise licence itself may be treated as cancelled. Bills were regularly sent to the licensees from time to time. The increase in the rate of licence fee is @ 10% of the previous year since 1.4.1995 to 31.3.2004 and @ 7% on the previous year licence fees since the period from 1st April 2004 onwards. Petitioner has wrongly asserted that the revision in the licence fee is @ 125% over the last valuation of the licence fee. In respect of the petitioner Brahamdeo Singh it is also asserted that he had not deposited the licence fee of the said stall from the period 5th February 1991 till date, though bills were regularly sent to him. The licence holder has not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement regarding enhancement of licence fee. In respect of the petitioner Brahamdeo Singh it is also asserted that he had not deposited the licence fee of the said stall from the period 5th February 1991 till date, though bills were regularly sent to him. The licence holder has not followed the terms and conditions of the agreement regarding enhancement of licence fee. The licence fee has been raised on the instructions of the Railway Board which cannot be changed. The increase is at similar rate of 10% from the previous year licence fee for the period from 1st April 1995 to 31.3.2004 and @ 7% from 1st April 2004 on instructions of the Railway Board. The assertion to the contrary have been denied. 4. By the interim order dated 12th September 2006 in both the cases it was directed that the arrears of enhanced licence fee shall not be recovered from the petitioners. However, petitioners shall pay the enhanced licence fee with effect from the month of September 2006. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have however failed to make any specific statement or legal submission in respect of the grounds urged by the petitioners that the increase has been made with retrospective effect and has been held as arbitrary by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.1405/1997 in the case of Kalighat Railway Plot Holders Vrs. Union of India & Ors. and relied upon in the case of Shri Nagbhushan Rao & Ors. Vrs. Union of India & Ors.-W.P. No.4752/2003 (Annexure-3). The categorical statements made at paragraph-15 and 24 of the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.2119/2006 have not been answered in the respective paragraph-21 and 27 of the counter affidavit. It has simply been stated that the same requires no comments. 6. Counsel for the petitioners however does not have instructions whether enhanced licence fee has been paid by the petitioners pursuant to the interim order dated 12th September 2006. 7. On consideration of the aforesaid facts and stand of the parties and the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, this Court is of the opinion that the respondent no.3-Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, Dhanbad should consider the grievances of the petitioners in relation to the enhancement of licence fee from the period 1991 to 2005 in the light of the judgment rendered by Calcutta High Court in W.P. No.4752/2003 by passing a fresh speaking order. Petitioner should make a detailed representation in that regard before the respondent no.3 within a period of three weeks from today duly supported with the documents and judgments. Petitioners, if are continuing with the licence during pendency of the writ petition, are obliged to pay the enhanced licence fee w.e.f. the month of September 2006 as directed by the interim order dated 12th September 2006. If such payments have not been made, on regular basis, it would be open to the respondents to take action in accordance with law against the petitioners. Writ petitions are accordingly disposed of.