IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND FOURTEEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35546 of 2014 Between:
M/s. Vijay Prestressed Products Pvt. Ltd., Near Railway Station, Pendurthi, Visakhapatnam – 531 217, Rep. by its Managing Director Sri M.S. Raju.
.. Petitioner AND Union of India, Rep. by its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail Sadan, New Delhi & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following:
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35546 of 2014 ORDER:
The petitioner has established a manufacturing unit to manufacture and supply Sleepers for Railway System. There is an existing contract with the Railways to supply Sleepers. As a consequence to awarding of contract for supply of Sleepers, the Railways have also leased out huge extent of land belonging to the Railways for establishing the unit. Accordingly, the unit was established and is in operation since 1984. In the year 1986, the method of fixation of license fee is notified. Thereafter, on 10.02.2005, revised policy was issued with reference to determination of licence fee. While so, the petitioner is served with notice, dated 17.09.2013, by the Divisional Railway Manager (Engg.), Waltair, informing the petitioner that the petitioner is required to pay higher land rent for the period from 01.04.2013 to 31.03.2014. He is also liable to pay outstanding dues for the period from 01.04.1995 to 31.03.2004 on due revision of rent @ 10 years, Service Tax @ 12.36% over land license fee for the year 2013-2014 and Security Deposit equivalent to one year license fee. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.79,31,524/- was quantified as liable to be paid by the petitioner. While so, the petitioner was also asked to approach the competent authority to seek appropriate clarifications on the issue of determination of rent payable and the issues relating thereof. Aggrieved by the said letter on contending that already amounts sought to be recovered, this writ petition is instituted.
2. Learned Standing Counsel, Sri T.S. Venkataramana, submits that the letter, dated 17.09.2013, clearly indicates that if there is any clarification required, the petitioner can approach the concerned authority. It was only an intimation to the petitioner that this is the amount due as per the revised rent. There was no demand and no coercive steps are taken. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, this fact is also specifically asserted in para 21. He, therefore, contends that there was no cause for the petitioner to invoke jurisdiction of this Court, more so after more than one year of issuing of the said letter. The petitioner ought to have approached the competent authority ventilating his grievance, which the Railways would have attended to. Learned Standing Counsel further clarifies that no amount is withheld or recovered from the petitioner as quantified in the letter, dated 17.09.2013. No doubt there were some recoveries made, but those recoveries, as mentioned in para 20 of the counter affidavit, are relatable to the arrears of the amounts due and payable by the petitioner and not in pursuant to the letter, dated 17.09.2013.
3. Since it is not a demand as specifically asserted by the respondents and that the Railways are willing to consider the grievance of the petitioner before taking a final decision on the issue of enhancing the rent and collecting the rent from retrospective date, the Writ Petition is disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation to the Senior Divisional Finance Manager, Waltair, Visakhapatnam (4th respondent) and the Senior Divisional Finance Manager is directed to consider the grievance of the petitioner on all aspects as such agitated by the petitioner, pass a reasoned order and communicate the same to the petitioner. The petitioner shall submit such representation within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on submission of such representation, the competent authority shall consider and pass orders within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. Until the orders are passed, the respondents shall not deduct the amount from the pending bills and shall not take any coercive steps to recover the amount quantified in letter No.WED/1/Siding/PDT.CSP/52A, dated 17.09.2013, for a period of one (1) week after the orders are communicated to the petitioner. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed.
P.NAVEEN RAO, J Date: 16th December, 2014 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO WRIT PETITION No.35546 of 2014 Date: 16th December, 2014 KL