Constitutional immunity against municipal service charges barred recovery from railway property; summary dismissal without merits gave no res judicata.

Municipal service charges could not be enforced against the Union of India for railway property because the statutory basis was subordinate to the constitutional immunity under Article 285, and the supposed contractual arrangement was only temporary and did not authorise recovery. The demand was therefore ultra vires and unenforceable. A prior summary dismissal of an earlier challenge, being based on delay and not on a merits adjudication, did not operate as res judicata, especially where the liability was recurring. The Union's writ relief was accordingly granted.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Municipality could validly demand service charges from the Union of India for railway property in view of the constitutional immunity and the statutory scheme governing such charges; (ii) whether an earlier summary dismissal of a challenge to the demand operated as res judicata.

Issue (i): whether the Municipality could validly demand service charges from the Union of India for railway property in view of the constitutional immunity and the statutory scheme governing such charges.

Analysis: The demand for service charges was examined against the earlier decision holding that the statutory provision governing railway liability to such charges is subordinate to the constitutional protection under Article 285 of the Constitution of India. The alleged contractual basis was found insufficient, as the arrangement relied upon was only a temporary measure and did not amount to a contract authorising recovery of service charges from the Union of India. The demand was therefore beyond the Municipality's authority.

Conclusion: The demand for service charges was ultra vires and unenforceable against the Union of India.

Issue (ii): whether an earlier summary dismissal of a challenge to the demand operated as res judicata.

Analysis: A summary dismissal, particularly one resting on delay and not on a merits adjudication, does not conclude the controversy for future proceedings. The liability in question was also recurring in nature, so the prior dismissal could not bar reconsideration of the same legal issue.

Conclusion: The earlier summary dismissal did not operate as res judicata.

Final Conclusion: The municipal demand was invalid, and the writ relief sought by the Union of India was granted.

Ratio Decidendi: A municipal demand for service charges cannot be enforced against the Union of India where it is inconsistent with the constitutional immunity applicable to railway property, and a prior summary dismissal without merits adjudication does not create res judicata for a recurring liability.

---