Demolition of the subject premises does not render a writ petition wholly infructuous when other reliefs survive.

The petitioner, a proprietorship firm, had operated a Cheap Meal Stall in the circulating area of Danapur Railway Station since 1957 under successive agreements with the Railway Department, the last of which expired on 26 February 1993.

Disputes subsequently arose regarding retrospective and revised licence-fee demands, including non-adjustment of amounts allegedly paid by the petitioner.

Earlier writ petitions—CWJC No. 12920 of 2005 and CWJC No. 750 of 2013—resulted in directions concerning reconsideration of demands and payment of licence fees in instalments.

The petitioner submitted a representation on 19 August 2016 seeking adjustment of prior payments.

Although the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager had recommended transfer of the commercial licence to the Engineering Department along with its liabilities, the Railway authorities issued a notice dated 25 June 2018 directing the petitioner to vacate the premises.

During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner was evicted and the stall was demolished.

The respondents argued that the writ petition had become infructuous, whereas the petitioner contended that its remaining reliefs—including provision of space, calculation of dues, and acceptance of licence-fee payments—still survived.

Whether the writ petition had become wholly infructuous after the petitioner’s stall was demolished, or whether the remaining reliefs continued to require adjudication.

Whether the petitioner could be permitted to seek, through a fresh representation, provision of suitable space for operating the Cheap Meal Stall, in light of the earlier recommendation of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager.

Whether the Court should itself adjudicate the petitioner’s claims on merits or direct the competent Railway authority to consider them in the first instance.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution in accordance with the procedural principle that a writ petition does not become wholly infructuous merely because one of the reliefs has ceased to be capable of grant, if other substantive reliefs remain live.

The Court also applied the principle that where the petitioner seeks consideration of its grievance by the competent administrative authority, and the matter involves examination of documents and factual materials, the authority should decide the representation in accordance with law before the Court undertakes merits adjudication.

The earlier order dated 19 July 2010 permitted reconsideration of licence-fee demands where relevant parameters had not been considered and preserved the Railway authorities’ power to recover outstanding dues in appropriate cases.

The Court distinguished between the relief challenging the notice of removal and the petitioner’s other prayers.

Since the stall had already been demolished, the challenge to the removal notice had become infructuous; however, the prayers seeking provision of alternative or sufficient space, reconciliation of licence-fee accounts, and acceptance of payments were not extinguished by the demolition.

In view of the petitioner’s request to pursue the matter through a fresh representation, and considering the earlier recommendation dated 11 October 2011 and rough sketch plan dated 27 September 2011, the Court declined to decide the merits directly.

Instead, it required the competent Railway authority to examine the relevant documents and materials and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Danapur, within one month from receipt of the order.

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager was directed to decide the representation, after considering all relevant documents and materials, within three months thereafter.

The writ petition and any pending interlocutory applications were accordingly disposed of.