Full Text
Translation output
V
46#
% 02.09.2011
Present: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.V. Sinha for the respondent.
C.M.No. 12905/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
+W.P.(C) No. 6413/2011 & CM. No. 12904/2011
*
Mr. Sinha, counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter affidavit. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the
46#
% 02.09.2011
Present: Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.R.V. Sinha for the respondent.
C.M.No. 12905/2011
*
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
+W.P.(C) No. 6413/2011 & CM. No. 12904/2011
*
Mr. Sinha, counsel for the respondents seeks time to file counter affidavit. On the other hand, counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the
JUDGMENT
passed by this
^ court in a batch of writ petitions in the matter of Kishan
Freight Forwarders Vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 2.6.2011.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been denied unconditional extension of lease for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel
Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract between the parties. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has always maintained an excellent performance record and there has not been any complaint against the petitioner of any
2011:DHC:18023 contravention or violation of the terms of the said leasing policy or about the services rendered by the petitioner during the lease period. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has no case of over loading or any imposition of penalty on the petitioner due to violation of breach of any terms of the contract. Counsel also submits that the respondent has granted extension to identical situated contractors on unconditional terms and even to those contractors against whom there were complaints of overloading. Counsel also submits that the action of the respondent denying the said unconditional extension of lease for a period of two years is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Patna High Court in M/s. Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI
& Ors and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s.
S.G. Traders &Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the respondent has not disputed the apphcability of the said judgment of Kishan Freight
Forwarders (supra) to the facts of the case of the present petitioner. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment and found that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the objections raised by the respondent and the facts of the present case being totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline rehef to the petitioner as sought in the present petition.
In the light of the aforesaid position the respondent is directed to extend the lease of the petitioner and grant the extension in the contract of 04 tonnes space in train No. 2818 from DLI to HTE (now ANVT to HTE) for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the
Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the
Contract.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
September 02, 2011 mg f
Is
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
^ court in a batch of writ petitions in the matter of Kishan
Freight Forwarders Vs. Union ofIndia, decided on 2.6.2011.
Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner has been denied unconditional extension of lease for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel
Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract between the parties. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has always maintained an excellent performance record and there has not been any complaint against the petitioner of any
2011:DHC:18023 contravention or violation of the terms of the said leasing policy or about the services rendered by the petitioner during the lease period. Counsel also submits that the petitioner has no case of over loading or any imposition of penalty on the petitioner due to violation of breach of any terms of the contract. Counsel also submits that the respondent has granted extension to identical situated contractors on unconditional terms and even to those contractors against whom there were complaints of overloading. Counsel also submits that the action of the respondent denying the said unconditional extension of lease for a period of two years is arbitrary and illegal. In support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of the
Patna High Court in M/s. Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI
& Ors and the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s.
S.G. Traders &Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
The counsel for the respondent has not disputed the apphcability of the said judgment of Kishan Freight
Forwarders (supra) to the facts of the case of the present petitioner. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment and found that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the objections raised by the respondent and the facts of the present case being totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline rehef to the petitioner as sought in the present petition.
In the light of the aforesaid position the respondent is directed to extend the lease of the petitioner and grant the extension in the contract of 04 tonnes space in train No. 2818 from DLI to HTE (now ANVT to HTE) for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the
Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the
Contract.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
September 02, 2011 mg f
Is
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J