1 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION) APPELLATE SIDE Present : The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 10263 of 2007 With CAN 3 of 2021 With CAN 5 of 2023 With CAN 6 of 2023 With CAN 7 of 2024 With CAN 8 of 2024 Smt. Gopa Chakraborty & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. With WPA 166 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 Smt. Gopa Chakravorti & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. With 2 WPA 52 of 2022 With CAN 1 of 2022 Subrata Sengupta Vs. Union of India & Ors. For the petitioner : Mr. Ashoke Kumar Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Mr. Indranil Nandi, Mr. Sayak Konar. For the Respondents in WPA 10263 of 2007 : Mr. Sanajit Kumar Ghosh, Ms. Sabita Roy. For the Respondents in WPA 52 of 2022 : Mr. Sunil Singhania, Ms. Kalpana Singhania, Ms. Sumedha Banerjee. Heard on : 10.08.2026 Judgment on : 27.08.2026 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:- FACTS: 1. Having regard to the thematic coherence of the issues involved, a coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 08.09.2023, directed that all three writ petitions be taken up for analogous hearing. 3 2. The three writ petitions arise out of disputes concerning the occupation of shop rooms at the Tollygunge Metro Railway Station Building. Though instituted at different points of time and challenging different notices, the petitions emanate from a common factual matrix, namely, the expiry of the licences in respect of the said shop rooms, the determination of the occupational charges payable thereafter and the consequential proceedings initiated by the Metro Railway authorities for recovery of the alleged dues and eviction. Therefore, in view of the commonality of the issues involved, all three writ petitions, together with the applications filed in connection therewith, are taken up for consideration together. 3. The petitioners in the respective writ petitions were allotted shop rooms at the Tollygunge Metro Railway Station Building under licence agreements entered into in or about the years 1993-1994. The licences were granted for limited periods and expired on 31st March, 2005. According to the petitioners, they had been carrying on their respective businesses from the said shop rooms for several years and, upon expiry of the licences, approached the Metro Railway authorities seeking continuation of their occupation by way of grant of long-term licences or leases. However, instead of acceding to their request, the Metro Railway authorities allegedly demanded exorbitant amounts towards occupation charges and, ultimately, by use of force, evicted the petitioners from their respective shop rooms. The principal relief sought by the petitioners is, therefore, restoration of possession of the respective shop rooms and continuation of their occupation upon grant of long-term licences or leases. 4 Facts ascertained from the writ petition being WPA 10263 of 2007 and its connected pending applications: 4. In WPA 10263 of 2007, the petitioners state that sometime in the year 1993, the Metro Railway authorities floated a tender inviting applications from intending applicants for allotment of shop rooms situated at the Tollygunge Metro Railway Station Building on licence. Upon emerging as successful tenderers, the petitioners were granted licences in respect of the shop rooms, as detailed in paragraph 2 of the writ petition, initially for a period of five years. Thereafter, the licences were renewed for a further period of five years, extending up to the year 2005, subject to an annual escalation of 10% per annum after two years and a review upon completion of five years, based on fresh tender, auction or land value, as might be determined by the Railway administration in its sole discretion. The licences were further subject to various other terms and conditions, as would be evident from the letter dated 27.11.2000/04.12.2000 issued by the Chief Engineer (O&H). 5. Though the area in which the shop rooms were situated was not a prominent commercial locality, the petitioners invested substantial amounts in setting up their respective shops on the assurance of the authorities that a market complex would shortly come up in the vicinity, which, according to them, would enable them to earn reasonable profits in due course. With such expectation, they continued their businesses despite meagre profits at the initial stage, particularly in view of the yearly escalation of licence fees and renewal of the licences for only five years. Moreover, petitioner nos. 6 and 7 were handed over possession of their 5 respective shop rooms only in the year 2004 and, consequently, had little opportunity to recover their investments. 6. The petitioners further contend that, at other Metro Railway stations, such as Chandni Chowk, which is a more prominent commercial area, shop rooms were allotted on long-term leases of 35 years at the rate of Rs. 1,755/- per sq. metre per annum, whereas at Tollygunge Metro Railway Station, charges were levied at the rate of Rs. 6,129/- per sq. metre per annum. According to the petitioners, such differential treatment is discriminatory and amounts to hostile discrimination against them. 7. In such conspectus, prior to the expiry of their respective licences, the petitioners submitted a joint representation dated 24th January, 2005, setting out all the aforesaid facts and requesting the authorities to take appropriate steps in the matter. Despite receipt of the said representation, however, no effective action was taken by the concerned authorities. Being aggrieved by such inaction, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 4285(W) of 2005, which was disposed of by an order dated 29th August, 2005, directing the Chief Engineer to consider their representations upon affording them an opportunity of personal hearing. Pursuant thereto, the petitioners were heard; however, by an order dated 11th November, 2005, their request for grant of long-term leases was rejected, with the further decision that the shop rooms would be put to open tender.Aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioners thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 25353(W) of 2005. 8. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, the Estate Officer, Metro Railway, initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the Public Premises 6 (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (for short, “the 1971 Act”). In connection therewith, a show-cause notice dated 18th January, 2007 was issued to the petitioners under Section 4 of the 1971 Act. Subsequently, by a notice dated 4th May, 2007 issued under Section 5(1) of the said Act, the petitioners were directed to vacate their respective shop rooms. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners approached this Court by filing WPA No. 10263 of 2007. 9. By an interim order dated 8th June, 2007 passed in the said writ petition, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the petitioners to pay occupational charges, at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square foot per year, with effect from 1st April, 2005, without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties. The Railway authorities were directed to assess the arrears payable by each of the petitioners and intimate the same to them, whereupon the petitioners were required to clear such arrears and continue to pay the current occupational charges at the aforesaid rate. The interim order further stipulated that, in the event of any default on the part of a petitioner in making such payment, the interim protection granted in his or her favour would stand vacated. 10. A dispute subsequently arose as to the unit of measurement on the basis of which the occupational charges were to be calculated. The petitioners contend that the licence documents, as well as the contemporaneous assessments made by the Railway authorities, proceeded on the basis of charges calculated per square metre and that, pursuant to the order dated 8th June, 2007, the Railway authorities initially assessed the occupational charges on that basis. According to the petitioners, they continued to make payments in terms of such assessments for several years. 7 11. The petitioners state that, in the year 2021, the Metro Railway authorities sought to calculate the occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square foot per year, thereby raising substantially enhanced demands upon them. The petitioners contend that the reference to “per square foot” in the order dated 8th June, 2007 was a typographical error and that the occupational charges ought to have been assessed on the basis of the area measured in square metres. In view thereof, the petitioners filed an application being CAN 3 of 2021, seeking modification of the interim order dated 8th June, 2007. 12. In the year 2021, respondent no. 6 issued an eviction notice calling upon the petitioners to clear a sum of Rs.2,68,627/- by 7th October, 2021, failing which they were directed to vacate their respective shop rooms. Subsequently, on 22nd December, 2021, another notice was issued by the Estate Officer and Senior Divisional Engineer, Metro Railway, Kolkata, directing the petitioners to vacate the said shop rooms. Thereafter, on 14th August, 2023, an eviction notice was issued under the provisions of the 1971 Act. Aggrieved by the said notice, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 preferred an application being CAN 5 of 2023. The respondents also issued notices in the year 2023 demanding substantially enhanced amounts towards occupational charges. Challenging the said demands, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 preferred the aforesaid application being CAN 5 of 2023. 13. Subsequently, notices dated 10th January, 2024 were issued under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989, calling upon the petitioners to vacate their respective shop premises by 17th January, 2024. Aggrieved by the said notices, 8 petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 challenged the same by filing an application being CAN 7 of 2024. 14. The petitioners contend that, initially, the electricity supply to their respective shop rooms was forcibly disconnected by the concerned respondents and that, thereafter, on 17th January, 2024, they were evicted from the said shop rooms with police assistance, during which their belongings were removed from the premises. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7 preferred an application being CAN 8 of 2024, praying for a direction upon the concerned respondents to permit them to re-enter their respective shop rooms and to restore the electricity supply thereto. Subsequently, a supplementary affidavit, duly affirmed by one of the petitioners, namely, Subrata Dutta, was filed for the purpose of bringing on record the eviction notice dated 17th January, 2024 issued against him. 15. The record reveals that, by an interim order dated 24th January, 2024, a coordinate Bench of this Court stayed the operation of the notices dated 10th January, 2024 and 17th January, 2024 for a period of fifteen days, which interim protection was subsequently extended until 15th March, 2024. Alleging that, despite the said order, the petitioners had been evicted in willful violation thereof, the petitioners preferred a contempt petition being CPAN 306 of 2024. However, the said contempt petition was dismissed by an order dated 3rd April, 2024. Thereafter, petitioner nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8 preferred another application being CAN 9 of 2024, which was subsequently dismissed as having become infructuous by an order dated 24th March, 2025. 9 Contents of affidavits used by the respondents: 16. In the affidavit-in-opposition and the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 6, a specific objection has been raised as to the maintainability of the present writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have approached this Court without availing themselves of the efficacious alternative remedy available to them. It has been contended on behalf of the respondents that an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act lies against an order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 thereof. According to the respondents, without availing themselves of such statutory appellate remedy, the petitioners have approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 17. The respondents further averred that, having regard to the commercial importance of the area, certain shop rooms were constructed and a tender was floated inviting applications from intending applicants. The petitioners, in terms of the conditions stipulated in the tender notice, deposited the requisite security deposit and consumption charges in advance. It was contended that, being fully aware of the terms and conditions of the tender, the petitioners voluntarily participated in the tender process and, upon being declared successful, entered into the respective contracts without raising any objection thereto. 18. It was further averred therein that the petitioners had invested amounts towards furniture, fixtures, fittings and other requirements for carrying on their respective businesses, and that the respondents could not be held responsible for such investments or for any loss allegedly suffered by the petitioners in the course of their businesses. It was also stated that, as per the records of the year 10 2002, the allottees of the shop rooms at Chandni Chowk were required to pay a sum of Rs.12,11,111/- towards lease premium, in two instalments spread over a period of six months. 19. The licences granted in favour of the petitioners expired on 31st March, 2005, and upon expiry thereof, the petitioners became unauthorised occupants of their respective shop rooms. Prior to such expiry, however, the petitioners had submitted a representation dated 24th January, 2005, seeking grant of long-term leases in respect of their respective shop rooms. Alleging inaction on the part of the concerned authorities in considering the said representation, the petitioners approached this Court by filing W.P. No. 4825(W) of 2005. Pursuant to the order passed in the said writ petition, the petitioners’ representation was considered and disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order dated 11th November, 2005. 20. Aggrieved by the order dated 11th November, 2005, the petitioners preferred another writ petition being W.P. No. 25353(W) of 2005. In the said writ petition, directions were issued for exchange of affidavits, and the matter is still pending adjudication. The respondents contended therein that grant of a long-term lease was never a subject matter of the contract entered into between the parties and, therefore, the petitioners’ claim for grant of such long-term leases is wholly unfounded and cannot be sustained. 21. Upon the petitioners becoming unauthorised occupants, the respondent authorities, through the Estate Officer, issued notices under Sections 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) of the 1971 Act, calling upon the petitioners to appear at the hearing and show cause against the proposed order of eviction. However, at the hearing, the petitioners failed to produce any document or material justifying their 11 continued occupation of the respective shop rooms after expiry of their licences. Consequently, a notice dated 7th May, 2007 was issued under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act, directing the petitioners to vacate their respective shop rooms within the period specified therein. Aggrieved by the said notice, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 22. In the instant writ petition, by an interim order dated 8th June, 2007, the Hon’ble Justice Dipankar Dutta (as His Lordship then was) directed the petitioners to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square foot per year in respect of the shop rooms in question, together with the arrears accruing from 1st April, 2005. The respondents contend that the petitioners failed to comply with the said order by not depositing the occupational charges as directed and also failed to pay the current occupational charges. The Railway authorities have further disputed the allegations concerning the manner of eviction and contended that the eviction was carried out strictly in accordance with law and that the belongings of the petitioners were duly kept in safe custody. 23. In the supplementary affidavit, it has been contended that the writ petitioners had earlier preferred a writ petition being W.P. No. 12723 of 2023, which was dismissed by a coordinate Bench of this Court by an order dated 25th May, 2023. It was, inter alia, observed therein that a party seeking equitable relief must approach the Court with clean hands. The respondents contend that, on the one hand, the petitioners had represented before this Court that they were willing to pay the licence fee at the enhanced rate, while, on the other hand, they continued to occupy and enjoy the premises without paying the occupational charges in terms of the order passed by this Court. According to the respondents, 12 the petitioners, having failed to comply with the aforesaid order, cannot be permitted to seek equitable relief from this Court. 24. It has been contended that, pursuant to the order dated 8th June, 2007, a total sum of Rs.8,8,03,55,315.83/- became payable by the petitioners towards occupational charges for the period from 1st April, 2005 to 31st March, 2022, inclusive of interest and GST at the rate of 18%. It was further stated in the affidavit-in-opposition filed in connection with CAN 7 of 2024 that, as on 31st March, 2024, the total outstanding occupational charges in respect of the six applicants amounted to Rs.106,05,06,852/- (Rupees One Hundred Six Crores Five Lakhs Six Thousand Eight Hundred Fifty-Two only). 25. It has been contended that, at the time when the petitioners were granted the licences, the Catering Policy, 2005 was in force. Subsequently, the Catering Policy, 2010 was introduced, which contained no provision for renewal of the existing licences. Thereafter, the Catering Policy, 2017 came to be adopted, under which every shop room was required to be allotted through the e-tender process. It has further been contended that, as the petitioners failed to pay the occupational charges in terms of the order dated 8th June, 2007, the electricity supply to their respective shop rooms was disconnected and, thereafter, they were evicted upon following the procedure prescribed by law. 26. In reply, the petitioners contended that the agreement between the petitioners and the Metro Railway was executed on 30th May, 1994. Thereafter, on 15th June, 2004, a letter of acceptance was issued, recording the payment of the licence fee, earnest money and initial security deposit in respect of the shop rooms. According to the petitioners, the said statement also reflected the 13 enhanced licence fee at the rate of Rs.8,803/- per square metre. The petitioners further contended that, pursuant to the instructions contained in the letter issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer, they deposited all outstanding dues with the concerned authority on 14th September, 2012. Subsequently, by a representation dated 12th March, 2021, the petitioners sought waiver of the licence fee on account of the financial hardship allegedly suffered by them during the COVID-19 pandemic. 27. The petitioners further contended that, until the year 2020, the concerned authority itself had assessed and demanded occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square metre per year. However, in the year 2021, the authority sought to levy occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square foot per year, purportedly in terms of the order dated 8th June, 2007. It was further contended that, although the agreement executed between the parties stipulated that the occupational charges would be enhanced at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square metre per year, the order dated 8th June, 2007 referred to the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square foot per year. The petitioners also relied upon a notice dated 12th June, 2007 issued by the Senior Divisional Engineer, whereby they were called upon to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per square metre per year for the period commencing from 1st April, 2005 to 8th June, 2007. Facts as delineated in WPA 52 of 2022 28. The writ petition being WPA No. 52 of 2022 concerns a shop room measuring approximately 12.51 square metres situated in the Tollygunge Metro 14 Railway Station Building, which had been allotted to one of the petitioners in W.P. No. 10263(W) of 2007, namely, Subrata Sengupta. The petitioner states that an Agreement for Licence was executed on 30th May, 1994 in respect of the said shop room for a period of five years. The said shop room, measuring approximately 12.51 square metres, was being used by the petitioner for carrying on business under the name and style of “Sree Durga Food Products”. The licence expired on 31st March, 2005 and was thereafter not renewed. 29. The petitioner states that she, along with the other occupants of the shop rooms, had earlier approached this Court challenging the policy of the Metro Railway authorities relating to the non-grant of long-term licences in W.P. No. 25353(W) of 2005. She was also one of the petitioners in W.P. No. 10263(W) of 2007, whereby the order dated 4th May, 2007, passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971, was challenged. 30. The petitioner relies upon the interim order dated 8th June, 2007, passed in the said proceeding concerning payment of occupational charges. According to her, the licence documents and the assessments made by the Railway authorities were based on a per-square-metre calculation, and she duly deposited the dues assessed by the Railway authorities on that basis. The petitioner states that, until 2020, the demands raised by the Railway authorities were calculated on a per- square-metre basis. According to her, from 2021 onwards, the Railway authorities began raising demands by treating the rate recorded in the order dated 8th June, 2007, as a rate applicable per square foot. 15 31. Thereafter, notices were issued demanding payment of the alleged outstanding occupational charges and requiring the petitioner to vacate the shop premises under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989. Aggrieved by the said notices, the petitioner challenged the demands, contending that the occupational charges had been incorrectly calculated, that the payments already made by her had not been duly accounted for, and that her representations in this regard had not been considered. 32. During the pendency of WPA 52 of 2022, a further notice dated 5th April, 2022 was issued under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989, directing the petitioner to vacate the shop premises by 20th April, 2022. The said notice was challenged by filing the connected application, being CAN 1 of 2022. Facts as depicted in WPA 166 of 2022 33. WPA 166 of 2022 which was filed by the petitioner nos. 1,2,3,4 7, & 8 in W.P. no. 10263(W) of 2007 concerns several shop rooms at the Tollygunge Metro Railway Station Building. From the materials placed before the Court, it appears that the petitioners were in occupation of shop rooms bearing nos. 4, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, 19 and 20 and that the licences in respect thereof expired on 31st March, 2005. 34. The petitioners state that they had earlier joined the proceedings challenging the Metro Railway authorities' decision not to grant long-term licences and had also challenged the notice dated 4th May, 2007 issued by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 in W.P. No. 10263(W) of 2007. 16 35. Their case is substantially similar to that of the petitioner in WPA 52 of 2022. They rely upon the order dated 8th June, 2007 concerning payment of occupational charges and contend that the licence arrangements and the assessments made by the Railway authorities had proceeded on a per-square- metre basis. According to them, the subsequent demands calculated per square foot gave rise to the present dispute. 36. The petitioners state that they made representations disputing the revised demands and also sought modification of the order dated 8th June, 2007. Notices were thereafter issued under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989 requiring them to vacate the shop premises, which led to the filing of WPA 166 of 2022. 37. During the pendency of the writ petition, a further notice dated 5th April, 2022 was issued under Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989 directing eviction from the shop premises by 20th April, 2022. The said notice was challenged by filing the connected application, CAN 1 of 2022. 38. No affidavits have been exchanged in the writ petitions, being WPA 52 of 2022 and WPA 166 of 2022. Submission : 39. Mr. Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate, advanced oral arguments and, in addition thereto, submitted written notes of arguments as well as supplementary written notes of arguments. He contended that, upon following due process of law, the petitioners were allotted shop rooms at the Tollygunj Metro Railway Station premises in 1994. The petitioners had invested substantial amounts of money in the said shop rooms and in their respective businesses and, despite 17 earning only a meagre profit, continued to carry on their businesses on the basis of an assurance given by the Metro Railway authorities that a market complex would shortly come up in the vicinity and that, in the long run, the petitioners would be able to recoup their losses and earn profits. 40. He submitted that, before the expiry of their licences, the petitioners had made applications seeking grant of long-term leases in respect of their respective shop rooms. However, while keeping the said applications pending, the Metro Railway authorities initiated proceedings against the petitioners under the 1971 Act. Subsequently, the petitioners’ prayer for grant of long-term leases was rejected on the ground that the applicable catering policy contained no provision for grant of such long-term leases. 41. He further submitted that, by an interim order dated 8th June, 2007, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the petitioners to pay occupational charges at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per square feet per year. However, according to him, a typographical error crept into the said order and, instead of the words “square metre”, the words “square feet” came to be recorded therein. He argued that the licence agreements stipulate that rent would be realised on the basis of “square metre” and that the assessment of rent had also been made by the authorities on the same basis. The Metro Railway authorities, however, had all along realised rent on the basis of square feet, even after the order dated 8th June, 2007 was passed. It was only in 2021 that the authorities started demanding occupational charges on the basis of square metre. He further submitted that the application seeking modification of the order dated 8th June, 2007 is still pending for final adjudication. In such circumstances, according to 18 him, the demand for occupational charges on the basis of square metre is unsustainable in law. 42. He argued that, ultimately, by an order passed under Section 5 of the 1971 Act, the Estate Officer directed the eviction of the petitioners from their respective shop rooms, which constitute their only source of livelihood. He further submitted that, on the alleged ground of non-payment of occupational charges in terms of the order dated 8th June, 2007, the petitioners were thereafter evicted from their shop rooms by invoking the provisions of Section 147(2) of the Railways Act. According to him, such action on the part of the authorities cannot withstand the test of reasonableness. 43. He prayed for an order directing the respondents to restore possession of the petitioners’ shop rooms upon acceptance of rent from the petitioners calculated on the basis of square metre. He relied upon a decision, reported in (1986) 2 SCC 679 (Comptroller and Auditor-General of India vs. K.S. Jagannathan), for the proposition that Article 226 of the Constitution is designedly couched in wide language so as not to confine the power conferred by it only to the power to issue prerogative writs as understood in England, but to enable the High Courts to reach injustice whenever it is found and to mould the reliefs to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements of this country. 44. Per contra, Mr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appearing for the respondents, argued that the present writ petitions are not maintainable. He submitted that the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act is appealable and that an appeal lies under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. However, 19 without exhausting the available statutory remedy, the present writ petitions have been filed. 45. He argued that the petitioners’ licences had expired in 2005 and, upon expiry of their licences, the petitioners became unauthorised occupants. Accordingly, the authorities had rightly initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the 1971 Act, particularly when the petitioners had failed to pay occupational charges in terms of the order dated 8th June, 2007. The outstanding amounts now stand at more than Rs. 100 crores. He contended that two of the petitioners, namely, Urmila Roy and Sulochana Mukherjee, have handed over vacant possession of their shop rooms, namely, shop room nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20. 46. Mr. Ghosh further argued that neither of the catering policies contains any provision for grant of a long-term lease in respect of any shop room located on the premises of the Metro Railway authorities and, as such, the petitioners’ prayer for grant of long-term leases has rightly been turned down. He contended that the petitioners are not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for in the present writ petitions and, accordingly, the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. 47. He referred to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No. 19714 of 2021 and Diary No. 23559 of 2021 (Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal vs. Government of India & Ors.), rendered on 16th December, 2021, for the proposition that, after expiry of the notice period, if the occupants fail to vacate the Railway premises, it would be open to the Railway to initiate appropriate action to forcibly dispossess them with the assistance of the local police force. He cited another decision, reported in (2005) 8 SCC 264 (U.P. State Spinning Co. Ltd. vs. R.S. Pandey & Ors.), for the proposition that, in view 20 of the availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Estate Officer under Section 5 of the 1971 Act is not maintainable. He relied upon an unreported decision of a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in MAT No. 1063 of 2024 (Chandannagar Station Area Hawkers Co-op Society Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.) in support of his contention that, when admittedly the property in question belongs to the Railway and the petitioner has no legal right to continue in occupation, the Railway authorities have every right to vacate the property with police assistance. To lend support to this view, he cited certain unreported decisions of different coordinate Benches of this Court in WPA 18275 of 2004 (M/s. Trigun Prasad Singh & Sons & Ors.), W.P. No. 28553 (W) of 2014 (Subrata Ghosh vs. The Union of India & Ors.), WPA 21016 of 2023 (Asimul Islam vs. Union of India & Ors.), WPA 18852 of 2021 (Titagarh Wagons Limited & Anr. vs. Union of India, represented by the Principal Secretary, Ministry of Railways & Ors.), and W.P. No. 25015(W) of 2013 (Dhurjati Prosad Das vs. Union of India & Ors.) and a decision, reported in (2006) 2 Cal LJ 193 (G. Phalaguna vs. General Manager). Mr. Ghosh also referred to three unreported decisions of three different Hon’ble Division Benches of this Court in MAT 603 of 2017 (Bindu Devi vs. General Manager, Eastern Railway & Ors.), MAT 1603 of 2024 (Chandannagar Station Area Hawkers Cooperative Society Ltd. vs. Union of India & Ors.), and APOT No. 109 of 2016 (Eastern Railway vs. Lafarage India Pvt. Ltd.), 48. In reply, Mr. Banerjee argued that the existence of an alternative remedy does not impose a complete bar upon the exercise of writ jurisdiction, as the rule is essentially a self-imposed restriction. He submitted that, notwithstanding the 21 availability of an alternative remedy, a writ petition may be entertained, inter alia, in three instances, namely, (i) where the writ petition is filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights; (ii) where there is a violation of fundamental rights or principles of natural justice; and (iii) where the order or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is under challenge. He argued that, in the present case, the fundamental rights of the petitioners have been violated and, as such, the present writ petitions have been preferred for enforcement of their valuable fundamental rights and are, therefore, maintainable.In support of his contention, he cited the decisions reported in (2021) 16 SCC 400 (State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Lord Northbrook & Ors.), (2011) 5 SCC 697 (Union of India & Ors. vs. Tantia Construction Pvt. Ltd.) and 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1992 (State of Rajasthan vs. Ajit Singh & Ors.). Analysis and conclusion: 49. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties. Perused the materials on record placed before me. 50. Indisputably, it is well settled that the existence of an efficacious alternative remedy does not operate as an absolute bar to the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The rule requiring exhaustion of an alternative statutory remedy is one of policy, convenience and discretion, and does not oust the jurisdiction of the High Court. In Whirlpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai, reported in (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Radha Krishan Industries vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (2021) 6 SCC 771, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated that, notwithstanding the availability of an 22 alternative remedy, the High Court may exercise its writ jurisdiction in appropriate cases, particularly where there is violation of fundamental rights, breach of the principles of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction or challenge to the vires of a statutory provision. At the same time, it is equally well settled that, where a statute provides an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal or otherwise, the High Court ordinarily should not entertain a writ petition without requiring the aggrieved party to exhaust such remedy. In Radha Krishan Industries (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that, where a right or liability is created by a statute which itself prescribes the remedy for enforcing such right or liability, resort must ordinarily be had to such statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. 51. However, in the present case, the objection as to the availability of an alternative remedy cannot be considered in isolation from the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioners were allotted the respective shop rooms in 1994 and their licences were renewed up to 2005. Before expiry of their licences, they sought grant of long-term licences, which was rejected on the ground that the applicable catering policy contained no provision for grant of such licences. Proceedings under Section 5(1) of the 1971 Act were thereafter initiated and orders of eviction were passed by the Estate Officer. 52. It is also not in dispute that, during the pendency of these writ proceedings, an interim order dated 8th June, 2007 was passed directing the petitioners to pay occupational charges. The petitioners have raised a specific dispute regarding the basis of assessment of such charges, contending that the order suffered from a typographical error as regards the unit of measurement and 23 that the payments already made by them were not duly adjusted. The application seeking modification or clarification of the said order is stated to be pending. The controversy assumes further significance in view of the subsequent demands towards occupational charges and the eviction of the petitioners from the shop rooms by invoking Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989. 53. In such circumstances, it would not be appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions in limine solely on the ground of the availability of a statutory appellate remedy, without taking into consideration the subsequent events relating to the payment of occupational charges, rejection of petitioners’ prayer for grant of long-term lease of their respective shop rooms and the eviction of the petitioners from their respective shop rooms, particularly when the issues arising from such subsequent events may not appropriately be addressed in an appeal under Section 9 of the 1971 Act. 54. Needless to state that the petitioners are entitled to restoration of possession as a matter of course. The right of the petitioners to continue in occupation after expiry of their licences is a separate question and has to be examined on its own merits. Likewise, the legality of the demands towards occupational charges and the effect of the order dated 8th June, 2007 and their subsequent eviction resorting to Section 147(2) of the Railways Act require consideration on the basis of the relevant records. 55. The petitioners, upon expiry of their respective licences, cannot claim any indefeasible right to remain in occupation of the Railway premises or any part thereof. They cannot claim restoration of possession merely on the ground that they had been carrying on their respective businesses in the said shop rooms for 24 several years, particularly when their licences had admittedly expired and their prayer for grant of long-term licences had also been rejected. Mere length of occupation, in the absence of a subsisting licence or any other enforceable right, cannot confer upon the petitioners a right to continue in occupation of the Railway premises. Accordingly, the petitioners’ prayer for a direction upon the respondents to restore possession of their respective shop rooms cannot be acceded to, and as such, the prayers for restoration of possession of their respective shop rooms and for a direction to grant long-term leases are rejected. 56. A coordinate Bench of this Court, in W.P. No. 25015(W) of 2013, considered the question as to whether a person who had entered upon Railway property as a licensee but continued in occupation beyond the tenure or termination of the licence could be evicted by taking recourse to Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989, and ultimately held that the Railway authorities have the right to evict a person having no subsisting right to occupy Railway property by invoking Section 147 of the said Act. In Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the Railway authorities can evict a person occupying Railway property without any legal right to do so by taking recourse to the provisions of the 1971 Act and the Railways Act, 1989, and the said view has subsequently been reiterated in G. Phalaguna (supra). 57. However, having regard to the statutory remedy available under Section 9 of the 1971 Act, this Court is of the view that the petitioners should avail such remedy for determination of their grievances against the order of the Estate Officer and the consequential demands. The petitioners shall, accordingly, be at liberty to prefer appeals under Section 9 of the 1971 Act within a period of four 25 weeks from date. If such appeals are preferred within the aforesaid period, the appellate authority shall consider the same on merits in accordance with law and shall not reject the appeals merely on the ground of delay, subject to the petitioners satisfying the statutory requirements and explaining the delay to the satisfaction of the appellate authority. 58. Having regard to the materials placed on record and, in particular, Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, being WPA 166 of 2022, wherein the occupational charge in respect of a shop room measuring 17.4 square metres was assessed at the rate of Rs. 8,803/- per square metre per year, and also considering that the total licence fee in respect of the shop room for the years 2003-2005 was determined at Rs. 1,12,502/-, I am inclined to accept the contention of the petitioners that the expression “Rs. 10,000/- per square feet per year” occurring in the interim order dated 8th June, 2007 requires modification and that the delay in seeking such modification cannot stand in the way of granting the same. Accordingly, the said expression shall stand modified to “Rs. 10,000/- per square metre per year” and the occupational charges payable by the petitioners shall be recalculated on that basis w.e.f. 1.5.2005, after giving due credit to all payments already made by the petitioners. 59. With these observations and order, the writ petitions being W.P. no. 10263(W) of 2007, WPA 52 of 2022 and WPA 166 of 2022 and its connected applications are, thus, disposed of ; however, without any order as to the costs. (Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)