IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14244 of 2008 1. M/S S.P.BANERJEE & SONS GOVT. RLY CONTRATOR N/F RAILWAY, P.O.+P.S. BARSOI KARIHAR, BIHAR, THROUGH ITS PARTNERS SWAPAN KR. BANERJEE + PRODIBENDU BANERJEE. 2. SWAPAN KR. BANERJEE SON OF LATE SANTOSH BANERJEE AT PRESENT ADDRESS STATION FEEDEERS ROAD HOUSE NO.102, P.S.+ PO SILIGURI, DIST-W.B. 3. PRODIBENDU BANERJEE SON OF LATE SANTOSH BANERJEE, R/O STATION FEEDEERS RAOD, HOUSE NO.104, P.S.+ P.O. SILIGURI, DISTRICT W.BENGAL. Versus 1. THE NORTH FRANTIER RAILWAY THROUGH ITS ZONAL MANAGER, H/O AT MALIGAON, ASSAM. 2. CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, NORTH FRONTIER RAILWAY, GAUHATI, ASSAM, H/O AT MALIGAON, GUAHATI ASSAM. 3. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, KATIHAR DIVISION, POST + DISTRICT KATIHAR, BIHAR. 4. SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, N.7 RLYS, KATIHAR, DIVISION, BIHAR. ----------- 03. 06.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the North Frontier Railways(hereinafter referred to as the Railways). 2. Petitioners are aggrieved by the direction of the railway authorities to vacate the railway premises which was given to them to organize refreshment stall on the platform of Barsoi railway station for the period of five years, which is contained in Annexure-1 to this application. Perusal of Annexure-1 indicates that the same is dated 29.8.2002 and the period of five years have already expired, but even after passage of five years petitioners are not vacating the premises. 3. It is submitted on behalf of petitioners that they cannot be evicted from the railway premises by the railway authorities without resorting to the civil proceeding in accordance with law. Perusal of Annexure-1 indicates that petitioners were given the - 2 - premises as licensee and once the period of licence is over, in my opinion, they can be evicted from the railway premises by the railway authorities and it appears in the light of the powers contained in the Public Premises Eviction Act, the authorities have served on the petitioners notice dated 14.1.2008, Annexure-B and the impugned order dated 25.8.2008, Annexure-4 asking them to vacate the refreshment stall. I do not see any illegality in the orders of the railway authorities. The writ application is dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioner to approach the appellate authority under the Public Premises Eviction Act, if they are so aggrieved by the impugned order. Rajesh/ (V.N. Sinha, J.)