Livelihood not at stake; HC refuses to interfere in revision of licence fee

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: The High Court has refused to interfere in the challenge to the upward revision of licence fee for a catering stall in the Mandya Railway Station under the South Western Railway, Bengaluru Division. The HC said that the livelihood of the caterer is not affected and the licence fee was a policy matter on which the courts cannot decide.

“It is not the case of Petitioner that the catering stall in question is the only source of livelihood and that he has nothing to fall back upon. Added, it is not his case that the licence has not been renewed, in fact it has been renewed. The grievance is only as to upward revision of the licence fee, that was not obviously one of the questions involved in the decision cited,” Justice Krishna S Dixit said while dismissing the petition filed by one V Ramakrishna, who held the licence to the catering stall. Ramakrishna’s petition had cited the Supreme Court judgement in the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Vs SCR Caterers case in which the court had ordered for the renewing of the licence as otherwise it affected the livelihood of the licence holder.

The HC however said that in the present case the question was not about renewal of licence fee but the upward revision of the fee.

“Where the lifeboats of petty businessmen stay afloat only on the basis of business of the kind, non-renewal or termination may amount to taking away the means of livelihood. That was the essential fact that has a brooding presence throughout the decision,” the HC said.

The Railways had revised the licence fee from Rs 1,43,095 to Rs 3,33,493 which Ramakrishan in his petition had claimed was “unjust, arbitrary and unreasonable.” The HC said that the issue involved contract and it was not desirable to bring it to the High Court.

“The catering arrangement does not partake a contract contemplated under Article 299 of the Constitution, either when it lacks the trappings thereof. In matters like this, a host of factors enter the fray of decision making, that too in terms of the contract/licence in question; both oral & documentary evidence needs to be adduced; therefore, invocation of writ jurisdiction is misconceived, especially in the absence of substantial elements of public law,” the HC said.

The HC further said that executive decisions should not be interfered with. “In matters involving fixation of licence fee, rentals or the like, the institution of judiciary has to show due deference to the decisions of the Executive, more particularly when such decisions are not done in exercise of statutory power.

Had it been a matter of statute, different considerations would have factored, arguably justifying interference of the Writ Court, is a point apart,” it said.

Dismissing the petition, the HC said, “In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition being devoid of merits, is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly, it is.