LAW FOR ALL

licences - shops in dispute admeasuring 4.22 sq. yards upto 100 sq. yards situated at Qutub Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi = the High Court dismissed the said writ petitions challenging the notice dated 25.5.1987, issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, calling upon the appellants to pay the licence fee for the railway property in their use, at the enhanced rate, and also letter dated 29.7.1987, terminating licences to operate the shops in question and to vacate the premises for failing to deposit outstanding dues on account of non-payment of licence fee. = We are of the considered opinion that no fault can be found with the aforesaid observations and no interference is required. The enhanced license fee cannot be held to be unreasonable or arbitrary, and as warranting any interference by a court of equity. 8. Undoubtedly, the enhanced license fee being 13 times, the earlier license fee amount seems excessive, and such an observation was also made by the Hon’ble Railway Minister in order dated 11.4.1981, but the enhanced license fee would be illusory if the same is compared with the prevailing license fee in the said market as applicable to private shops. A welfare state must serve larger public interest. “Salus Populi Suprema lex”, means that the welfare of the people is the supreme law. A state instrumentality must serve the society as a whole, and must not grant unwarranted favour(s) to a particular class of people without any justification, at the cost of others. However, in order to serve larger public interest, the State instrumentality must be able to generate its own resources, as it cannot serve such higher purpose while in deficit. Merely because the appellants have been occupying the suit premises for a prolonged period of time, they cannot claim any special privilege. In the absence of any proof of violation of their rights, such concession cannot be granted to them.- The High Court has observed that the letter/notice dated 7.8.1980, enhancing the rate of license fee remains unchallenged, and therefore, the application of notice dated 25.5.1987, with retrospective effect is justified. This finding is not factually correct. Notice dated 7.8.1980, enhancing the license fee was received by the appellants, and representations were filed by them through their Association, raising all their grievances to the effect that during a period of 30 years, the license fee paid by them had been enhanced about 15 to 20 times, without any justification and hence, they demanded justice. The same were considered by the then Railway Minister, and orders dated 26.9.1980 and 11.4.1981 were passed by him, observing that the license fee may be revised after every 5 years on the basis of justice and equity. Certain interim relief was also granted. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the opinion that the aforesaid demands should not have been made to apply with retrospective effect from the year 7-8-1980. In view of the above, the appeals succeed and are allowed partly, to the extent that notice dated 25.5.1987 must not be applied retrospectively, i.e., w.e.f. 7-8-1980. However, the enhanced license fee may be recovered from the appellants from the said date in accordance with law. With these observations, the appeals stand disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. CA Nos.268-279, 263-266 & 248-262 of 2003 The abovesaid Civil Appeals stand disposed of in terms of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal Nos.243-247 of 2003.