•^ ilg, c1£^ IN THEHON'BLEHIGH^CIOUR'F OF .roDlGATURE AT BILAsmjitJfCHH.&TMSGA^Hl ^W.P. No.'t.3e>'g:.:72004^y^; ' ; , PETITIONERS PLAINTIFFS 1.^ SagarAgrawal, S/o Late Gopu^un Agrawal, Aged 44 years, • ";, ; Occupatipri- Business, ...ilSI^ ^ ^^^.•>>^-; ^.^^. BajrangAgrawal, ^•^^^.'t S/'o^MaturajsiAgrawal, ^P^'^^"^';^.,;,':'Aged^aboutj36years, pGCupation- Business .,::...-^?^.::'^ ...•••,^y":;:l:':.:^ <^' <?°" ;^-:.' .(^' ?ja* ^ RESPONMaiTS! (DEFESNfilSlira'iS^ BothPartners ofthe fuTnM/s. GopiraiiiMatUrain, R/o Gandhi Ganj, Raigarh (C.G.) .VERSUS, ;;" ! •.l'/ ' '': : •'• 1. Uniorioflndia, Through.: .General Manager, SouthEasten'iRaiIway, 11- Gardeii Ksach Road, Kolkata [Calcutta] (W.B.) Z.DjvisiQnatgailwayManager, (C^mmercial)S.E.'RSilway, ^,',^BHaSpur':(j©liHatt3sgari^ '' 3.:':.'Staj|ioniS't:tRerinfehdenl;: ^^'';?:^;^!'::!''i:-'':,::-,':'';;'^ / I^ulway Sjtation- gaigarh (C^.) :^WRIT?BffiiB['t6N3UiraiE^IABil®]E,Bs2S^ ,|: E:I.; .•'T-^^'JNIL^ ^EMNSTi'BijiiBatiME-iiNfflffiflia w^ il! t'iaII i;a il 99 Q IilS'wlliiI ii: ;'jaiill XI-HC-22 ^ ;<i'»t;-'<i<ltei'y<?;3Atqtel°l<fl t^ ''i'.".~ .'~i"'.-'- ;''y-- " . -• . ..'" /.••'^ . ^^ '. ^^t VS^K ••^^^'i- ,...,.. ,:,:,^,.^.^.;^^..__.-.s,-~ ^^^^^..y.^,.......,^.-..,..^ 2QQ ^ sn^r'w f^tft^^l '^ff^T sw^" sn^i^tat^teri <*iWli'l41'1+l|t;fif'?:Ts'el'(l"itSK •^•aifsna^i ^r^-*'a 17.06.2004 Shri K.N. Nande, counsel for th[ Shri Vinay Harit, ,Sr. Gentral Oo| of India/respoiKicnt.?' bn advance cop^ I.A. No.2930 of 2004 for urgenf it is submitted; that th6 petij defendants by licence in the year 198J fee). was Rs.2,160/- ;If was enhancei annual rent was •enhanced to Rs.9i grievance ;of .the petitioners is .tKat] erihanced fo Rs.3.4,8717- fi-om'Rs.9,7^ the enhancements in. Eent. Duririd responderjts sent;a^notice ,daled O ".-f '. ' ••^:" :•'.' ' •"' ." "'.' ' erihanced rerit. . The petitioriers f3f injunctton^ but the,:game .was rejecl preferred agairist'that was also rejectec Havihg cohsidered the facts.an record ahd:fhatvthe suit is said to be since 1996, in the opinion of this Goy interference in the impugned orders p: petitioner. t. Standing'Gounsel for .the Union icaring is allowed. ^ .. ioners dbtained a plot from the '. Initially the annual rent (licence from time t6 time. Further the 763{- in the: year 1989-90. The again. -tbe .licence fee has been i3/-. They filed a civil suif against the pendency of the suit, the .9..'2001 demanding to • pay the ;d an applicatiQn for teniporaiy sd by the trial Court. 'Appeal bythelowerappelfatecQurt. . 1:1 circumstances andmaterial ori (sending against the enhancement ^tnocase is made out warranting Lssed by the cpurts below, at this: stage.. However, the trial Court • is Idirected to ciecide the suit in Ke .preferably within 6 .inontbs. !t:>urt shall decide fhe^same dn its obseFvations mad.e in the ordera those applications^ With the ,aboye .(firectiort/pb^eTvatiori.s,-;tbis. petitibn- stands^ aisposed of. aocordance with law, as early as possi It is made clear fhat the tsial own merits without beihg influenced t Consequently, M.W. P. 1171 fQS, u.u.'a.s'iser raiss: a|lso stands disposed of. _/f -?Sd/-. Fakhruddin I Judge .