IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.R.BANNURMATH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH MARCH 2009 / 4TH CHAITHRA 1931 WA.No. 2068 of 2007 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN OP.25400/1999 DATED 25/6/2007 .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------- SUNNY ABRAHAM, DEALER, M/S.HINDUSTAN PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD., KILLIPALAM, KARAMANA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.V.N.ACHUTHA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.B.S.SWATHY KUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE RAILWAY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, CHENNAI. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY ADV. SRI.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,SR.SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.R. Bannurmath, C.J. & Kurian Joseph, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.A.No. 2068 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this, the 25th day of March, 2009 JUDGMENT Kurian Joseph, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The issue pertains to the steps taken by the Railways for enhancement of the licence fee in respect of the premises occupied by the writ petitioner. Though the case has a chequered history, we do not think that we should go into those aspects in detail. It would be sufficient for the present purpose to refer to Ext.P6 judgment dated 23.03.89. The licence fee applicable to the petitioner was Rs.874.86. That was sought to be revised to Rs.1,65,221/- with effect from 1981. That gave rise to various litigations including a Civil suit. Finally, this court in Ext.P6 judgment directed the Railways to consider the matter afresh with notice WA No.2068/07 -:2:- to the petitioner and thus Ext.P7 order was passed by the General Manager. That order was under challenge in the writ petition. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and hence the appeal. 2. Though the learned Senior counsel advanced several contentions vehemently, we do not think that we should refer to those contentions since it cannot be disputed that the agreement provided for revision of licence fee. The land measuring 12,703 Sq. Ft was occupied by the writ petitioner ever since 1972. It was vacated only in the year 1988. Going by the details as furnished in Ext.P7, we find that for the first time steps for enhancement was taken only in the year 1981. That was intimated only in July 1983 as per Ext.P3. One of the main contentions taken by the learned Senior counsel is that the appellant is not given advance notice in the matter of revision. Yet another contention is on the rate. As far as the rate is concerned, we do not think that this Court would WA No.2068/07 -:3:- be in a position to comment on the same since fixation is made having due regard to the extent and location. As far as the date of effect of revision is concerned, the General Manager by Ext.P6 order has taken the stand that the first intimation was given to the petitioner regarding revision as per Ext.P3 dated 14.07.83 and hence the revision would be effective from 15.01.84. But the intimation, i.e. Ext.P3 dated 14.07.83, is on the revision already effected. Be that as it may, as per Ext.P5 we find that the writ petitioner himself had submitted a representation agreeing for revision, of course to reasonable limits. We have already found that licence fee already fixed is reasonable. Ext.P5 letter is dated 09.01.84. So, we are of the view that, six months from Ext.P5 can be taken as the date for the revision. Accordingly, Ext.P7 would stand partly modified to the effect that the revision of licence fee would be effective from 10.07.84. The judgment under appeal is modified to the above extent. The appellant is permitted to pay the WA No.2068/07 -:4:- balance in five monthly instalments starting from the month of April 2009. The Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. S.R. Bannurmath, Chief Justice. Kurian Joseph, Judge. ttb