M/S Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7157 of 2022 ====================================================== M/s Daya Engineering Works Pvt. Ltd. a company duly incorporated under the Indian Companies Act 1956, having its registered office at The Safe Legend, 4th Floor, 6-3-1239/B/111, Renuka Enclave, Raj Bhavan Road, Somajiguda, Hyderabad-500082, Telangana, and branch office at Buniyadganj, Manpur, Gaya-823001, Bihar, through its Deputy General Manager (Works), Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 40 years, GenderMale, son of Jay Nath Singh, Resident of Railway Yard, Buniyadganj, Manpur, District-Gaya, Bihar.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India through the Railway Board represented by its Director (Land and Amenities), Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi. 2.

The Director (Land and Amenities), Railway Board, Rail Bhavan, Raisina Road, New Delhi.

3.

The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. 4.

The Divisional Railway Manager, Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyay Division, East Central Railway.

5.

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, DDU Division, East Central Railway.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal, Advocate Ms. Aditi Hansaria, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Dr. K. N. Singh, ASG Mr. Kumar Priya Ranjan, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 19-05-2022 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) : - (i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the demand notice dated 06.05.2022 bearing No.

Com/Comml.Plot/MPO/22/05 (Anx-11) issued

2/8 under the signature of Respondent No. 5 whereby and whereunder the Respondent Railways has directed the Petitioner to pay the enhanced license fee in accordance with the current land value with retrospective effect;

(ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus declaring that the Respondent Railway is not entitled to claim arrears of license fee as the same has not been authorised by the Master Circular dated 10.02.2005.

(iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Railways to calculate the license fee in terms of Clauses 3.1, 5.1, 5.2 and 7.0 of the Master Circular on licensing of railway land for commercial plots issued by the Railway Board vide Letter No. 2005/LML/18/8 dated 10.02.2005;

(iv) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Railways to calculate the license fee by fixing the value of land on the basis of the value of the land of the surrounding area as on 01.01.1985;

(v) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Railways to execute the lease agreement with the Petitioner after calculating the license fee on the basis of revised land value;

(vi) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent Railways not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner during the pendency of this application including forceful evacuation of land;

3/8 (vii) To any other relief or reliefs for which the Petitioner is found entitled to in the Facts and circumstances of the case.

After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be in favour with the submissions made across the Bar, learned counsel for the petitioner, under instructions, states that petitioner shall be content if a direction is issued to the authority concerned to consider and decide the representation which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today for redressal of the grievance(s). Learned counsel for the respondents states that if such a representation is filed by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along with a copy of this order.

Statement accepted and taken on record.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in D. N. Jeevaraj Vs. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors, (2016) 2 SCC 653, paragraphs 34 to 38 observed as under:- "34. The learned counsel for the parties addressed us on the question of the bona fides of Nagalaxmi Bai in filing a public interest litigation. We leave this question open and do not express any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the High Court in this regard.

35. However, we note that generally

4/8 speaking, procedural technicalities ought to take a back seat in public interest litigation. This Court held in Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P. [Rural Litigation and Entitlement Kendra v. State of U.P., 1989 Supp (1) SCC 504] to this effect as follows: (SCC p. 515, para 16) "16. The writ petitions before us are not inter parties disputes and have been raised by way of public interest litigation and the controversy before the court is as to whether for social safety and for creating a hazardless environment for the people to live in, mining in the area should be permitted or stopped. We may not be taken to have said that for public interest litigations, procedural laws do not apply. At the same time it has to be remembered that every technicality in the procedural law is not available as a defence when a matter of grave public importance is for consideration before the court."

36. A considerable amount has been said about public interest litigation in R&M Trust [R&M Trust v. Koramangala Residents Vigilance Group, (2005) 3 SCC 91] and it is not necessary for us to dwell any further on this except to say that in issues pertaining to good governance, the courts ought to be somewhat more liberal in entertaining public interest litigation. However, in matters that may not be of moment or a litigation essentially directed against one organisation or individual (such as the present litigation which was directed only against Sadananda Gowda and later Jeevaraj was impleaded) ought not to be entertained or should be rarely entertained. Other remedies are also available to public spirited litigants and they should be encouraged to avail of such remedies.

37. In such cases, that might not strictly fall in the category of public interest litigation and for which other remedies are available, insofar as the issuance of a writ of mandamus is concerned, this Court held in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra [Union of India v. S.B. Vohra, (2004) 2 SCC 150: 2004 SCC (L&S) 363] that: (SCC p. 160, paras 1213)

5/8 "12. Mandamus literally means a command. The essence of mandamus in England was that it was a royal command issued by the King's Bench (now Queen's Bench) directing performance of a public legal duty.

13. A writ of mandamus is issued in favour of a person who establishes a legal right in himself. A writ of mandamus is issued against a person who has a legal duty to perform but has failed and/or neglected to do so. Such a legal duty emanates from either in discharge of a public duty or by operation of law. The writ of mandamus is of a most extensive remedial nature. The object of mandamus is to prevent disorder from a failure of justice and is required to be granted in all cases where law has established no specific remedy and whether justice despite demanded has not been granted."

38. A salutary principle or a wellrecognised rule that needs to be kept in mind before issuing a writ of mandamus was stated in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India [Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. Union of India, (1974) 2 SCC 630] in the following words: (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 24-25) "24. ... The powers of the High Court under Article 226 are not strictly confined to the limits to which proceedings for prerogative writs are subject in English practice. Nevertheless, the well-recognised rule that no writ or order in the nature of a mandamus would issue when there is no failure to perform a mandatory duty applies in this country as well. Even in cases of alleged breaches of mandatory duties, the salutary general rule, which is subject to certain exceptions, applied by us, as it is in England, when a writ of mandamus is asked for, could be stated as we find it set out in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd

6/8 Edn.), Vol. 11, p. 106:

'198.

Demand for performance must precede application.-As a general rule the order will not be granted unless the party complained of has known what it was he was required to do, so that he had the means of considering whether or not he should comply, and it must be shown by evidence that there was a distinct demand of that which the party seeking the mandamus desires to enforce, and that that demand was met by a refusal.'

25. In the cases before us there was no such demand or refusal. Thus, no ground whatsoever is shown here for the issue of any writ, order, or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution."

As such, petition stands disposed of on the following terms:- (a) Petitioner shall approach the authority concerned i.e. Respondent No. 5, namely Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, DDU Division, East Central Railway within a period of four weeks from today by filing a representation for redressal of the grievance(s); (b) The said authority shall consider and dispose it of expeditiously by a reasoned and speaking order preferably within a period of four months from the date of its filing along

7/8 with a copy of this order and till then status quo as on date shall be maintained;

(c) The order assigning reasons shall be communicated to the petitioner;

(d) Needless to add, while considering such representation, principles of natural justice shall be followed and due opportunity of hearing, including personal hearing, afforded to the parties;

(e) Also, opportunity to place on record all relevant materials/documents shall be granted to the parties; (f) Equally, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to take recourse to such alternative remedies as are otherwise available in accordance with law;

(g) We are hopeful that as and when petitioner takes recourse to such remedies, as are otherwise available in law, before the appropriate forum, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law and with reasonable dispatch; (h) Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum/Court, should the need so arise subsequently on the same and subsequent cause of action; (i) We have not expressed any opinion on merits. All issues are left open;

8/8 (j) The proceedings, during the time of current Pandemic- Covid-19 shall be conducted through digital mode, unless the parties otherwise mutually agree to meet in person i.e. physical mode;

The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

Interlocutory Application(s), if any, stands disposed of.

(Sanjay Karol, CJ) ( Satyavrat Verma, J) Rishi/- U