IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 1ST FEBRUARY 2008 / 12TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 24215 of 2004(G) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ MUHAMMED. T.A., S/O. ALIKKUTTY, THARAYIL HOUSE, NEDUNGOTTOOR POST, SHORANUR, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, COMMERCIAL BARANCH, PALAKKAD. 2. THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, REVENUE RECOVERY, TALUK OFFICE, OTTAPALAM, OTTAPALAM TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.M.R.SREELATHA, .SC.RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: TRUE COPY OF THE INTIMATION OF ENHANCEMENT OF LICENCE FEE, DT.27.9.96. P2: TRUE COPY OF THE PREVIOUS LICENCE AGREEMENT DT.1.6.94. P3: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.10.2001 RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER FROM R1. P4: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.29.10.2001. P5: .DO. DT.31.10.2001. P6: .DO. DT.6.11.2001. P7: .DO. DT.7.11.2001. P8: .DO. DT.12.11.2001. P9: .DO. DT.6.12.2001. P10: TRUE COPY OF LETTER SENT BY PETITIONER DT.29.1.2002. P11: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.15.2.2002. P12: .DO. DT.1.3.2002. P13: TRUE COPY OF DEMAND NOTICE DT.4.8.2004 BY R2. P14: TRUE COPY OF LETTER DT.30.9.97 BY R1 TO THE PETITIONER. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R1A: TRUE COPY OF FORM NO.24 REQUISITION DT.13.7.2004. R1(a): TRUE COPY OF JUDGMENT IN W.A. NO.2918/2002 DT.21.1.2003 BEFORE THE HON'BLE COURT. R1(b): TRUE COPY OF COMMERCIAL CIRCULAR NO.16 DT.24.6.99 ISSUED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS. TRUE COPY PA TO JUDGE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... W.P.(C) No.24215 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of February, 2008. JUDGMENT Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he heard that petitioner is no more. It is seen from the interim orders that even though petitioner was earlier granted conditional interim order of stay, petitioner offered to pay the entire demand on 12.2.2007 and therefore, this court recorded the same. Contest made in the W.P. is against demand of licence fee at 12% of sales turnover. According to Standing Counsel for the Railways, contest in similar cases was rejected by this court and got confirmed by the Supreme Court. Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that what is contested is retrospective enhancement of licence fee. In any case since petitioner is reported to be no more and licence itself was cancelled in 2002, I close the W.P. leaving freedom to the legal heirs to claim refund of the amount to the extent eligible. I make it clear that since the case is not decided on merits, it would be open to the legal heirs to raise any dispute on grounds raised herein, if so advised. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms