JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. T. H. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in the above writ petitions. Also heard Mr. B. Sarma, Mr. B.K. Das and Mr. A. Barkataki, the learned standing counsels for the Railway Ministry as well as the NF Railways and Mr.N.A. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. 2. The instant batch of writ petitions have been filed challenging the various Notices of Demand for payment of arrear license fees to the petitioners. All the Notices of Demand are collectively referred as “the impugned Notices of Demand’. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondent authorities have most illegally, unreasonably, arbitrarily and without any basis have directed the petitioners in the batch of writ petitions to pay arrear license fee. 3. It appears on record that pursuant to the filing of the writ petitions, this Court had issued notice and in the meanwhile, vide various orders, directed the respondent authorities not to take any coercive action against the petitioners pursuant to the impugned notices of demand and further directed that the petitioners shall be allowed to continue their vends on payment of the existing dues. 4. Pursuant thereto, it appears that the respondent authorities have filed their affidavits-in-opposition. In the affidavits-in-opposition filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7 in W.P.(C) No. 7339/2018, it has been mentioned that the Rangia Railway Division came into existence w.e.f. 1/4/2003. After the bifurcation of the Alipuduar Division, the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/Alipurduar handed over a list of 123 numbers of vending units pertaining to the newly created Rangia Division. It was mentioned that before bifurcation of the Alipurduar Division, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager/Alipurduar had enhanced/revised the license fee of the catering/vending units in the month of February, 2003. A challenge was made to the said revision by one person namely Shri V.K. Balakrishnan and other catering/vending licensees by filing writ petitions being W.P.(C) No. 2448/2003 and W.P.(C) No. 2963/2003. Initially there was an interim order passed to the effect that there shall be no realization from the petitioners therein either on account of arrear rent or enhanced rent/fee. It was also mentioned in the interim order that the petitioners therein shall go on paying the rent/fee as prevalent as on that date. Initially there was an interim order passed to the effect that there shall be no realization from the petitioners therein either on account of arrear rent or enhanced rent/fee. It was also mentioned in the interim order that the petitioners therein shall go on paying the rent/fee as prevalent as on that date. However, W.P.(C) No. 2963/2003 was dismissed vide order dated 16/9/2014 for non prosecution. It was further mentioned in the affidavit-in-opposition that as per the Railway Board’s policy all licenses operated catering/vending units under A & B category stations of North East Frontier Railway were handed over to the Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited (for short ‘IRCTC’) w.e.f. 1/2/2006 in terms with CCM/North East Frontier Railway/Maligaon’s Letter No. C/470/Railway Board/Policy/2005 dated 13/2/2006. Since the Rangia Railway Station fell under Category B Station (presently Category A station), therefore the units of Rangia Railway Station were handed over to IRCTC and thereafter in the year 2010 again the units were handed over to the Railways. At this stage, it is relevant to mention that the impugned Notices of Demand except the Notices of Demand in W.P.(C) No. 4138/2018 pertains to the period when the vending/catering units were under the IRCTC. In W.P.(C) No. 4138/2018, the notices of Demand was not only for the period during IRCTC but also for the period prior thereto. 5. It was further mentioned that the petitioners had on one hand approached this Court and on the other hand had filed representation before the respondent authorities praying for some time so that they can make payment of the arrear license fee. The railway authorities on good faith have granted them an opportunity but the petitioners failed to pay the revised arrear license fee and rather had approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was further mentioned that the Railway Board had delegated power under the Commercial Circular No. 56/2006 circulated under Railway Board’s Letter No. 2006/TG-30-III/600/11 dated 6/7/2006 to fix minimum license fee of all static catering units of A, B and C category stations taking into account GDP, purchasing power, land value, type of cliental, number of passengers, location of the units, sales turn over etc into consideration. It was mentioned that IRCTC, East Zone, Kolkata have revised license fee of the Rangia Railway Station w.e.f. November, 2006 based on the GDP. It was mentioned that IRCTC, East Zone, Kolkata have revised license fee of the Rangia Railway Station w.e.f. November, 2006 based on the GDP. It was further mentioned that the IRCTC/East Zone/Kolkata have revised/enhanced the license fee of some of the catering/vending units of Rangia Railway Station and issued notice to the licensee for paying the revised license fee including arrears vide letter No. IRCTC/TG/Licensing vending/2008 dated 3/12/2008. The said revision of license fee was put to challenge by the Rangia Railway Vending Association before this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.70/2009. However, the writ petition was dismissed by the order dated 4/6/2015. It was further mentioned that during the pendency of the writ petitions no separate agreement has been executed between the Railway and the petitioners regarding the renewal of license for non-payment of arrear license fee shown by IRCTC. In paragraph No.15 of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondents have stated that the license fee was fixed based on the formula provided by the Railway Board vide Commercial Circular No. 56/2006 in respect of all static catering units of A, B, & C category stations. It was further mentioned that there was no specific instruction or guideline received from IRCTC and the Railway Board for relaxation in the arrear amount shown by IRCTC against the licensees. 6. From a perusal of the said affidavit-in-opposition one thing is clear that although the concerned respondent authorities i.e. the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 & 7 though had defended the impugned notices of Demand, but the said affidavit is silent as to how the demand was arrived at. There is no materials or calculations shown on how each of the amounts were demanded by the impugned notices of demand. Merely the said Respondents have mentioned that the IRCTC had revised the license fees and it on the basis of such revision that the impugned notices of demand were made. It is therefore very relevant to take note of the stand of the IRCTC in their affidavit-in-opposition. 7. The respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. the IRCTC had filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been mentioned that IRCTC was accepting the license fee only for a small duration of time and IRCTC presently has no relation with the same after handing over the same to the Railway authorities. 7. The respondent No. 3 and 4 i.e. the IRCTC had filed their affidavit-in-opposition. In the said affidavit-in-opposition, it has been mentioned that IRCTC was accepting the license fee only for a small duration of time and IRCTC presently has no relation with the same after handing over the same to the Railway authorities. The IRCTC in their affidavit more particularly at paragraph 7 though defended the notice dated 24/1/2018 but remained silent in what manner the said amount demanded by the impugned notices of demand were arrived at. At this stage, this Court would like to observe that when the demand have been assailed as illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable, the IRCTC was obligated to put on record as to why the notices of demand were not illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable. The IRCTC have also not placed any record as to how the demand in the impugned Notices of Demand were arrived at. 8. Mr. T.H. Hazarika, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the basic case of the petitioners is that a huge arbitrary amount has been demanded upon the petitioners without any basis and even in the affidavit-in-opposition there is no mention whatsoever as to how the said amount has been arrived at. He, therefore, submits that on the face of it, the action of the respondent authorities in demanding the huge amount of license fees as arrear being without any basis is arbitrary and accordingly violates the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution. 9. On the other hand, Mr. B. Sarma, the learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the Railways have submitted that the impugned demand notices which have been issued upon the petitioners for the period during which the IRCTC were handed over to the concerned Railway Station. He however pointed out that in W.P(C) No. 4138/2018 filed by Shri Haladhar Kalita, the impugned demand notices dated 1/6/2016 pertains to various periods. He submitted that in terms with the said demand notice dated 1/6/2016, the petitioners had not paid the license fee for the period from 7/2/2003 to 31/10/2005 of an amount of Rs.27,305/- and for the period from 1/11/2005 to 31/1/2006 of an amount of Rs. 2505/-. He submitted that in terms with the said demand notice dated 1/6/2016, the petitioners had not paid the license fee for the period from 7/2/2003 to 31/10/2005 of an amount of Rs.27,305/- and for the period from 1/11/2005 to 31/1/2006 of an amount of Rs. 2505/-. The said demand said, that the petitioner was liable to pay as per the then existing rates which the petitioner have not paid and these demands were made during the period when the Alipuduar Division was under the Railways. Mr. Sarma further drawing the attention of this Court to W.P.(C) No. 233/2019 had submitted that except the petitioner No. 1 rest of the petitioners have filed the said writ petition on the basis being the purported power of attorney holder of the original licensee and as such the petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 in the said writ petition have no locus standi to file the writ petition. He further submitted that except the petitioner No. 2 in the said writ proceedings, the others have not even enclosed the power of attorney on the basis of which the said petitioners claim to be authorized. 10. Mr. A. Barkataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway Authorities in W.P.(C) No. 1636/2019 submitted that the original licensees of the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 14 have admittedly expired and there is no provision in the agreement entered into by the licensee along with the railway administration that the vending units can be continued by the legal representatives. 11. Mr. N.A. Singh, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the IRCTC in all the above writ petitions have submitted that the demand notices were issued for the period till 1/9/2010 and there is no records available with the IRCTC as to on what basis the calculation was arrived at on the basis of which the demands were made vide the impugned notices of demand upon the petitioners. It is therefore his submission that IRCTC is not in a position to show any material how the formula was applied while raising the Demands vide the impugned Notices of Demand upon the petitioners. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. It is therefore his submission that IRCTC is not in a position to show any material how the formula was applied while raising the Demands vide the impugned Notices of Demand upon the petitioners. 12. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 13. The arrear license fees so demanded in the instant proceedings vide the impugned notices of demand are for the period during which the vending units were handed over to IRCTC. Though from the affidavit filed by the Railway Authorities as well as the IRCTC, it is clear that they have applied the GDP formula but they have not been able to show as to how applying the said formula, the demands which have been imposed upon the petitioners have been calculated. 14. It is a trite principle of law that when an authority passes an order/Demand there has to be materials to support the demand/order and when the said demand/order is questioned before a Court of law, the authorities are bound to disclose the reasons and the materials on the basis of which the demand/order was passed. Non-disclosure of the reasons and the materials on which the demand/order was passed would render the Demand/order arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse and therefore violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Admittedly the IRCTC has no material to show as to how the demands were arrived at or for that matter how the formula, if any was applied insofar as the case of the petitioners are concerned while issuing the impugned Notices of Demand. Under such circumstances, the action of the concerned respondent authorities in the opinion of the Court in issuance of the impugned Notices of Demand are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse and accordingly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the impugned notices of demand so issued upon the petitioners which have been impugned in the batch of writ petitions for the period during which IRCTC was in-charge of the said vending units are interfered with and the impugned demand during the said period is held to be unconstitutional, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and accordingly set aside. 15. At this stage, this Court would also like to take note of the submission made by Mr. 15. At this stage, this Court would also like to take note of the submission made by Mr. B. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Railway Authorities to the effect that in W.P.(C) No.233/2019 the petitioners No. 2 to 8 have filed the writ petition on behalf of the original licensee and from the records available in the instant proceedings, it is only the petitioner No. 2 who has produced a purported power of attorney. The other submission in this regard is by Mr. A. Barkataki, the learned counsel, wherein he submitted that in W.P.(C) No. 1636/2019 admittedly the petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 14 are only the legal representative of the original licensees. Under such circumstances, the question therefore arises as to whether the said petitioners i.e. petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.233/2019 and petitioner Nos. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 14 in W.P.(C) No. 1636/2019 can maintain their respective writ petitions or for that matter should this Court interfere with the said impugned Notices of demand which on the face of it, as held hereinabove are arbitrary, unreasonable and perverse on the ground that the IRCTC have failed to disclose the reasons and materials how the formula have been applied to in the respective Demands made against the petitioners. 16. This Court is of the opinion that taking into account that this Court have held the impugned notices of Demand to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, this Court would not like to deprive the petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 in W.P.(C) No.233/2019 as well as petitioners Nos. 1, 3, 9, 12 and 14 in W.P.(C) No. 1636/2019 only because they have not filed their authority as that they are the legal representatives of the original licensees. Accordingly, the impugned notices of demand issued against the petitioner Nos. 2 to 8 in W.P.(C) No. 233/2019 and the petitioner Nos.1, 3, 9, 12 & 14 in W.P.(C) No. 1636/2019 are also interfered with. 17. Now the next question therefore, arises as to what amount the IRCTC/Railways would be entitled to during the period the Railway Stations were under the control of IRCTC, taking note of the fact that there is no material available with the IRCTC to calculate the amount by applying the GDP formula. 17. Now the next question therefore, arises as to what amount the IRCTC/Railways would be entitled to during the period the Railway Stations were under the control of IRCTC, taking note of the fact that there is no material available with the IRCTC to calculate the amount by applying the GDP formula. In the opinion of this Court, the IRCTC would be entitled to the license fee during the said period. As admitted at the Bar at that relevant point of time the Catering Policy of 2005 was applicable and therefore, in terms with Clause 14.6.4 of the said policy, it is the requirement that there has to be a minimum increase of 10% on the prevailing license fee of the unit annually. Under such circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the IRCTC would be entitled to a 10% increase in the existing license fee annually during that relevant point of time. Accordingly, the IRCTC/Railway would therefore be within its domain and jurisdiction to issue revised notice of demand upon the petitioners herein for the amount by increasing 10% annually from the existing license fee. 18. This Court further would like to take note of at this stage the submission of Mr. B. Sarma to the effect that Annexure-I i.e. the notice of demand dated 1/6/2016 in W.P.(C) No. 4138/2018 wherein apart from the amount to which IRCTC was entitled to, there is a mention that the Railway Authority were entitled to an amount of Rs.27,305/-for the period 7/3/2003 to 31/10/2005 and Rs. 2505/- for the period from 1/11/2005 to 31/1/2006. The said demand is however not interfered by this Court and the Railway Authorities would be within its domain/authority to recover the said amount from the petitioners in W.P.(C) No. 4138/2018 in accordance with law. 19. This Court would also take note of the fact that by virtue of the interim orders, the petitioners are continuing to vend irrespective of the fact that presently they have not renewed their licenses. It is the opinion of this Court and accordingly clarified that the right of the petitioners to vend is dependent upon the licenses given by the Railway administration and sans the renewal/allotment, the petitioners would have no right to vend. Accordingly, the Railway administration would be within their rights to take appropriate actions as per their existing policy. 20. It is the opinion of this Court and accordingly clarified that the right of the petitioners to vend is dependent upon the licenses given by the Railway administration and sans the renewal/allotment, the petitioners would have no right to vend. Accordingly, the Railway administration would be within their rights to take appropriate actions as per their existing policy. 20. With the above observations and directions, all the writ petitions stands disposed of. The interim orders passed earlier in the writ petitions stands vacated.