Full Text
Translation output
'a'r v\
,rlpt
27# o/otl.O7.2OLL
Present: Mr. Ashish Mohan for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandan Kumar for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 3878/20L1 & CM No. 8O67/2OL1-
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner in respect of the parcel space in Train No. 2808-R
Ex. HNZM to VSKP w.e.f. 23.2.201.1 till 22.2.20t4 in terms of
Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and
Clause 18 of the Contract between the parties.
Brief facts relevant for deciding the present case are that the o- petitioner was allotted the contract for parcel u' leasing in respect of Train No. 2808-R Ex. HNZM to VSKP vide allotment letter dated 22.2.2008 whereby he was permitted to take over the work w.e.f. 23.2.2008. As the lease was scheduled to expire on 22.2.20Lt, the petitioner vide
Ietter dated t9.2.20tl sought extension of the lease for a period of two years under the terms and conditions as
2011:DHC:17326
:/
,', 7'
,J
A, l.
/ t
)r-'f
1rt stipulated in the policy as weil as in the contract. As per the petitioner the respondent in vioration of the terms of the poricy as arso the contract granted extension onry for a period of three months or t'r finarization of fresh tender whichever is earlier. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
The contention of the counser for the petitioner is that in the'present case also the petitioner has been denied unconditionar extension of rease for a period of two years in terms of crause (E) of the comprehensive parcer Leasing
Policy and crause 1g of the contract between the parties.
Counsel also submits that the petitioner has always maintained an exceilent performance record and there has not been any compraint against the petitioner complaining any contrvention or vioration of the terms of the said leasing policy or about the services rendered by the petitioner during the lease period. counser arso submits that the respondent has granted extension to identicar situated contractors on unconditionar terms and even to those contractors against whom there were compraints of overroading. counser arso ril) v 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
,rlpt
27# o/otl.O7.2OLL
Present: Mr. Ashish Mohan for the petitioner.
Mr. Chandan Kumar for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 3878/20L1 & CM No. 8O67/2OL1-
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner in respect of the parcel space in Train No. 2808-R
Ex. HNZM to VSKP w.e.f. 23.2.201.1 till 22.2.20t4 in terms of
Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and
Clause 18 of the Contract between the parties.
Brief facts relevant for deciding the present case are that the o- petitioner was allotted the contract for parcel u' leasing in respect of Train No. 2808-R Ex. HNZM to VSKP vide allotment letter dated 22.2.2008 whereby he was permitted to take over the work w.e.f. 23.2.2008. As the lease was scheduled to expire on 22.2.20Lt, the petitioner vide
Ietter dated t9.2.20tl sought extension of the lease for a period of two years under the terms and conditions as
2011:DHC:17326
:/
,', 7'
,J
A, l.
/ t
)r-'f
1rt stipulated in the policy as weil as in the contract. As per the petitioner the respondent in vioration of the terms of the poricy as arso the contract granted extension onry for a period of three months or t'r finarization of fresh tender whichever is earlier. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
The contention of the counser for the petitioner is that in the'present case also the petitioner has been denied unconditionar extension of rease for a period of two years in terms of crause (E) of the comprehensive parcer Leasing
Policy and crause 1g of the contract between the parties.
Counsel also submits that the petitioner has always maintained an exceilent performance record and there has not been any compraint against the petitioner complaining any contrvention or vioration of the terms of the said leasing policy or about the services rendered by the petitioner during the lease period. counser arso submits that the respondent has granted extension to identicar situated contractors on unconditionar terms and even to those contractors against whom there were compraints of overroading. counser arso ril) v 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 (CWJC No.657/2009) and the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in M/s. S.G. Traders & Anr. Vs. UOI & l-
Ors. (WPC No.23926-28/2007)
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks some 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.
(Jnion ot tlaia (MANU/DE 21Bg/201 1), decrded on 2.6.2011.
The counsel for the respondent also does not dispute the applicability. of the said judgment to the facts of the case at hand.
Heard. lt. t"
I
,.4
\J e
,, I have gone through the aforesaid judgment in
Kishan Freight Forwarders (Supra) and find that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the objections raised by the respondent railways and the facts of the present case are totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline retLf to the petitioner as sought in the present petition. tr
In the light of the aforesaid position, the respondent is directed to extend the lease of the petitioner and grant the unconditional extension in the contract of 04 tonnes FSLR space in train No. 2808-R Ex. HNZM to VSKP in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing
Policy and Clause l-B of the Contract. a:
With the above directions, the present petition stands d*posed of.
\
Patna High Court in M/s. Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI
& Ors (CWJC No.657/2009) and the judgment of the
Calcutta High Court in M/s. S.G. Traders & Anr. Vs. UOI & l-
Ors. (WPC No.23926-28/2007)
Mr. Chandan Kumar, Iearned counsel appearing for the respondent seeks some 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.
(Jnion ot tlaia (MANU/DE 21Bg/201 1), decrded on 2.6.2011.
The counsel for the respondent also does not dispute the applicability. of the said judgment to the facts of the case at hand.
Heard. lt. t"
I
,.4
\J e
,, I have gone through the aforesaid judgment in
Kishan Freight Forwarders (Supra) and find that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the objections raised by the respondent railways and the facts of the present case are totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline retLf to the petitioner as sought in the present petition. tr
In the light of the aforesaid position, the respondent is directed to extend the lease of the petitioner and grant the unconditional extension in the contract of 04 tonnes FSLR space in train No. 2808-R Ex. HNZM to VSKP in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing
Policy and Clause l-B of the Contract. a:
With the above directions, the present petition stands d*posed of.
\
I
A f/\
KAILAS$##'BHIR, J
JULY 1,5,2OL1 mg l,
A f/\
KAILAS$##'BHIR, J
JULY 1,5,2OL1 mg l,