Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 751 (JHR)

Mahabir Prasad v. Union of India

2022-06-29

RAJESH SHANKAR

body2022
ORDER : 1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 22nd October, 2021 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) passed by the respondent no. 2, whereby the petitioners’ representation has been rejected, directing them to vacate the respective rented commercial premises within 15 days, without considering that they are ready to deposit entire arrears as well as to fulfil all the terms and conditions as may be imposed by the respondents. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 3. The petitioners earlier approached this Court twice by filing writ petitions being W.P. (C) No. 681 of 2013 and W.P. (C) No. 6741 of 2019. The earlier writ petition i.e. W.P. (C) No. 681 of 2013 was disposed of vide order dated 13th February, 2013 giving liberty to the petitioners to submit fresh representation in pursuance of the impugned notice and on receipt of the same, the respondent authorities were directed to consider it in accordance with law within three months. It was also observed, inter alia, that till the said decision is taken by the respondent authorities, no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners. 4. The petitioners, thereafter, filed W.P. (C) No. 6741 of 2019, challenging the notices dated 28th November, 2019 issued under the signature of the Assistant Divisional Engineer, East Central Railway, Daltonganj, whereby they were directed to vacate the respective commercial premises occupied by them. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 18th February, 2021 by quashing the impugned notices dated 28th November, 2019 and remanding the matter to the Divisional Railway Manager, Eastern Railway, Dhanbad- respondent no. 2 to take a fresh decision and pass an informed order after providing due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners/their representatives. It was also observed in the said order that no coercive step shall be taken against the petitioners for the premises in question till such decision is taken by the said authority. 5. Now in the present writ petition, the petitioners have again challenged the decision of the respondent no. 2, directing them to vacate the respective commercial premises in question. The said commercial premises were initially allotted to the petitioners for a period of one year on payment of licence fee, which were subsequently extended on yearly basis till 1993. 5. Now in the present writ petition, the petitioners have again challenged the decision of the respondent no. 2, directing them to vacate the respective commercial premises in question. The said commercial premises were initially allotted to the petitioners for a period of one year on payment of licence fee, which were subsequently extended on yearly basis till 1993. However, in the year 1985 the rent was revised @ 10% on the basis of existing market value of the land, which amounted to Rs. 1434.80 for 25’ x 25’ plot of land. The petitioners were, thereafter, asked vide letter dated 26th December, 1994 to make payment of the licence fee on the revised rate and to get the respective agreements renewed. Instead of making payment of revised licence fee, the petitioners filed Title Suit no. 87 of 1995 in the court of Munsif-II, Palamau at Daltonganj. The said title suit was, however, dismissed on 23rd September, 2011. The petitioners then filed Title Appeal No. 49 of 2011 in the court of District Judge, Palamau, which was also dismissed on 23rd March, 2018, affirming the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit no. 87 of 1995. Thereafter, the petitioners filed the aforesaid two writ petitions before this Court. 6. It would, thus, be evident that there has been no renewal of respective agreements since 1994. However, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the licence fee has been paid till 1998 that too on unrevised rate. 7. Enough is enough. The facts mentioned herein above would clearly indicate that the petitioners have continued to occupy the respective commercial premises for decades together without renewal of agreements or payment of the licence fee. Hence, the petitioners do not deserve any further indulgence of this Court. 8. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at present the petitioners are carrying on their business of sawmills in the respective commercial premises and during the monsoon season they will have difficulty in vacating the said premises. Hence, they may be granted reasonable time for the said purpose. 10. On this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners may also be directed to pay the arrears of licence fee which they have not been paid for years together. 11. Hence, they may be granted reasonable time for the said purpose. 10. On this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners may also be directed to pay the arrears of licence fee which they have not been paid for years together. 11. Considering the aforesaid submissions, the petitioners are granted three months’ time from today to vacate the respective premises in question with further direction them to pay arrears of licence fee to the respondents within the aforesaid period. 12. I.A. No. 4363 of 2022 is also dismissed.