IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3332 of 2008 RANJIT RAY Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.3493 of 2008 RAM CHANDRA YADAV Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.4626 of 2008 RAMARANJAN PRASAD SINGH Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS with CWJC No.4629 of 2008 GUNJARI DEVI Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING TOURISM CORPORATION & ORS with CWJC No.4738 of 2008 MOTI BHAGAT Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING TOURISM CORPORATION & ORS with CWJC No.4804 of 2008 RAM VILASH MAHTO Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. &ORS with CWJC No.4812 of 2008 VILAYAT HUSSAIN Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD & ORS with CWJC No.4948 of 2008 JAGARNATH RAUT Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.& ORS with CWJC No.4979 of 2008 DHRUB NARAIN RAI Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD. & ORS with CWJC No.4980 of 2008 DHRUB KUMAR SAH Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.& ORS with CWJC No.17713 of 2008 ARUN CHANDRA PRASAD Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.& ORS with CWJC No.17719 of 2008 SUNITA CHAUBRIYA Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY & ORS with CWJC No.17729 of 2008 - 2 - SHANTI DEVI Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION Ltd. & ORS with CWJC No.6187 of 2009 DEEPAK KUMAR VERMA Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAYS & ORS with CWJC No.9311 of 2009 RANJIT ROY Versus THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING & TOURISM CORPORATION LTD.& ORS ----------- 10 12.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In all these writ applications there is common thread of grievance. The petitioners are licensed vendors operating at various railway stations falling within the State of Bihar. The respondent Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. ( in short IRCTC Ltd.) has issued notices to the petitioners for payment of revised rate for running the static unit. These notices have been challenged by these petitioners on various grounds. One submission is that the demand itself will show that the revision from a retrospective date can never be permitted. The second aspect pointed out is that the amount fixed for the current subsisting period are also exorbitant and excess and has been fixed in breach of Revised Catering Policy, 2005 read with revised policy issued on 6.7.2006 which are annexures-7 and 8 to the writ applications. Attention of the Court has been drawn to clause 10.4 of annexure-7 as well as clause 2 of annexure-8. Both these provisions read together lays down the parameter based on which the revised payment can be demanded. Contentions of these petitioners are that the - 3 - demand which has been raised upon them by the respondents do not match with the parameters laid down. There are some instances like to the turn over of the petitioners and the revised demand made which is many time over and above 12% which has been indicated in clause 10.4. Some other parameter has not been taken into consideration at all as would be reflected from the chart furnished by the respondents with their counter affidavit. Only some elements and parameter had been factored but not all. The stand and contention on behalf of the respondent corporation is that the policy and fixation was subject matter of challenge before the Gujrat High Court and it has been upheld. If that be so, the policy having all India ramification cannot be faulted. The issue is not the validity of the policy as such but the application and enforcement of the policy laid down by the respondents. If they have laid down certain guidelines for revision in the rate to be charged from the static units, located at various stations then there has to be application of mind to all those parameters in working out the final figure or demand. After having heard the rival sides and having a looked at the policy and the material which has been brought on record by the respondents, the Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners have made out some case for interference. There are certain unexplained areas but since it is not the duty of the Court to fix rates or the demand, the matter is being relegated back to the respondents Corporation to take a fresh decision - 4 - preferably may be after hearing the parties to the dispute. Annexure-1 impugned in all the writ applications therefore stands quashed. The matter is relegated back to the respondents with a hope that they will take an early decision on the issue so that the dispute come to rest and the petitioners can continue with their business and earn their livelihood without any threat. It goes without saying that till the decision of the respondents on the issue they will not disturb the petitioners on the basis of demand raised in annexure-1. All the writ applications stands disposed of with the above direction. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)