Expiry of a railway licence extinguishes any enforceable right to continued occupation or restoration of possession.

The petitioners had obtained licences in 1993–1994 for shop rooms at the Tollygunge Metro Railway Station Building. The licences, initially granted for five years and subsequently renewed, expired on 31 March 2005.

Before expiry, the petitioners sought long-term licences or leases, but the Metro Railway authorities rejected the request and decided to allot the premises through open tender.

Proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (“1971 Act”) were thereafter initiated, culminating in notices under Sections 4 and 5(1) directing the petitioners to vacate.

During the pendency of the proceedings, a coordinate Bench directed the petitioners, by order dated 8 June 2007, to pay occupational charges at Rs.10,000 per square foot per year from 1 April 2005.

The petitioners contended that “square foot” was a typographical error and that the rate was intended to be applied per square metre, particularly because the licence documents and prior Railway assessments used square metres.

The Railway authorities subsequently raised enhanced demands, disconnected electricity, and evicted the petitioners by invoking, inter alia, Section 147(2) of the Railways Act, 1989.

Whether the writ petitions were maintainable despite the statutory appellate remedy under Section 9 of the 1971 Act against an order of eviction passed under Section 5(1)?

Whether the petitioners had an enforceable right to restoration of possession or grant of long-term licences or leases after expiry of their licences on 31 March 2005?

Whether the Railway authorities were entitled to evict the petitioners from the premises by invoking Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989?

Whether the reference to occupational charges at Rs.10,000 per square foot per year in the order dated 8 June 2007 required modification to Rs.10,000 per square metre per year, with adjustment of payments already made?

The Court applied the rule that the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not absolutely bar the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226, but ordinarily requires exhaustion of the efficacious remedy, subject to exceptions such as violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenge to statutory vires, as recognised in Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, and Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2021) 6 SCC 771.

Section 9 of the 1971 Act provides an appellate remedy against an Estate Officer’s eviction order under Section 5.

The Court further applied the principle that expiry of a licence does not confer any continuing right to occupy public or Railway premises, and that unauthorised occupants may be evicted under the 1971 Act and Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989, relying on Utran Se Besthan Railway Jhopadpatti Vikas Mandal v. Government of India, SLP (Civil) Diary Nos. 19714 and 23559 of 2021, order dated 16 December 2021, and G. Phalaguna v. General Manager, (2006) 2 Cal LJ 193.

The Court also relied on the broad remedial scope of Article 226 described in Comptroller and Auditor-General of India v. K.S. Jagannathan, (1986) 2 SCC 679.

The Court held that the alternative-remedy objection could not be considered in isolation because the case involved subsequent disputes concerning occupational-charge calculations, the pending request to clarify or modify the 2007 interim order, and the petitioners’ subsequent eviction under Section 147 of the Railways Act—issues not necessarily capable of complete resolution in a Section 9 appeal alone.

Nevertheless, the petitioners’ licences had admittedly expired and their request for long-term leases had been rejected; length of occupation, business investment, or alleged hardship did not create an enforceable right to remain in possession.

Consequently, the Railway authorities were legally entitled to recover possession from occupants having no subsisting right, including by recourse to Section 147 of the Railways Act, subject to compliance with law.

On the measurement dispute, the Court considered the contemporaneous assessment of Rs.8,803 per square metre per year for a 17.4-square-metre shop and the licence charges for 2003–2005, and concluded that “square feet” in the 8 June 2007 order was a typographical error.

The rate was therefore required to be calculated per square metre, with credit for all payments already made.

It recognised the Railway authorities’ power to evict unauthorised occupants under the 1971 Act and Section 147 of the Railways Act, 1989.

However, the Court permitted the petitioners to prefer appeals under Section 9 of the 1971 Act within four weeks; any delay was not to be rejected mechanically, subject to compliance with statutory requirements and satisfactory explanation of delay.

The expression “Rs.10,000 per square foot per year” in the order dated 8 June 2007 was modified to “Rs.10,000 per square metre per year,” and the occupational charges were directed to be recalculated from 1 May 2005 after giving credit for payments already made.

All three writ petitions and connected applications were disposed of without costs.