Full Text
Translation output
20# o/o15.07.2011
Present: Mr. Ashish Mohan for the petitioner.
Mr. joydeep Majumdar for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 4780/2011 & CM No. 9695/2011
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
'. Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct
! i
, I the respondents to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner in respect of the parcel space in Train No. 2410-R
Ex. HNZM to BSP w.e.f. 14.1.2011 till 13.1.2013 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 pursuant to the tender issued by the respondent for parcel leasing space in Train No. 2410-R Ex. HNZM to BSP the petitioner submitted its tender and being the highest bidder was awarded the same and vide letter dated
11.1.2008 the petitioner was directed to complete the formalities and then take over the work. The petitioner after completing all the formalities took over the work w.e.f.
2011:DHC:17341
·-
14.1.2008 and formal contract of leasing of 04 tonnes RSLR space in the said train was executed between the petitioner and the respondent railways on 22.2.2008. That on 8.9.2010 the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent requesting for an extension of the lease granted to it for an additional period of two years as envisaged in clause (E) of the Leasing
Policy and the contract signed between them. As per the petitioner, the respondent in violation of the terms of the
Parcel Leasing Policy and also the contract vide order dated
17.1.2011 only granted extension for a period of two years or till finalization of the fresh tender whichever is earlier, which decision of the respondent is in violation of its own circular dated 15.2.2011 whereby a decision was taken that extension should be granted to the leaseholders for a period of two years subject only to satisfactory performance and observance of all commercial formalities. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that
In the present case 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 (CPLP) 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 regarding any
Present: Mr. Ashish Mohan for the petitioner.
Mr. joydeep Majumdar for the respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 4780/2011 & CM No. 9695/2011
*
By this petition filed under Article 226 of the
'. Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct
! i
, I the respondents to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner in respect of the parcel space in Train No. 2410-R
Ex. HNZM to BSP w.e.f. 14.1.2011 till 13.1.2013 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 pursuant to the tender issued by the respondent for parcel leasing space in Train No. 2410-R Ex. HNZM to BSP the petitioner submitted its tender and being the highest bidder was awarded the same and vide letter dated
11.1.2008 the petitioner was directed to complete the formalities and then take over the work. The petitioner after completing all the formalities took over the work w.e.f.
2011:DHC:17341
·-
14.1.2008 and formal contract of leasing of 04 tonnes RSLR space in the said train was executed between the petitioner and the respondent railways on 22.2.2008. That on 8.9.2010 the petitioner sent a letter to the respondent requesting for an extension of the lease granted to it for an additional period of two years as envisaged in clause (E) of the Leasing
Policy and the contract signed between them. As per the petitioner, the respondent in violation of the terms of the
Parcel Leasing Policy and also the contract vide order dated
17.1.2011 only granted extension for a period of two years or till finalization of the fresh tender whichever is earlier, which decision of the respondent is in violation of its own circular dated 15.2.2011 whereby a decision was taken that extension should be granted to the leaseholders for a period of two years subject only to satisfactory performance and observance of all commercial formalities. Feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that
In the present case 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 (CPLP) 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 regarding any
• 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 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 to the petitioner 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. (WP.(C) No.657/2009) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. S. G.
Traders & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.(WP.(C) No. 23926-28/2007. r
I:
Mr. Majumdar, learned 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 Frejght
Forwarders Vs. Unjon of Indja (MANU/DE/2189/2011/ decided 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.
I have gone through the aforesaid judgment in
Kishan Frejght Forwarders (Supra) and find that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the issues raised by the respondent railways and the facts of the present case are totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline relief 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
I' l.i
I, and grant unconditional extension of 04 tonnes RSLR space in train No. 2410 Ex. HNZM to BSP for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel
Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract between them.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
JULY 15, 2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J
Express Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors. (WP.(C) No.657/2009) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in M/s. S. G.
Traders & Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.(WP.(C) No. 23926-28/2007. r
I:
Mr. Majumdar, learned 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 Frejght
Forwarders Vs. Unjon of Indja (MANU/DE/2189/2011/ decided 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.
I have gone through the aforesaid judgment in
Kishan Frejght Forwarders (Supra) and find that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with all the issues raised by the respondent railways and the facts of the present case are totally identical, therefore I do not find any reason to decline relief 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
I' l.i
I, and grant unconditional extension of 04 tonnes RSLR space in train No. 2410 Ex. HNZM to BSP for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel
Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract between them.
With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
JULY 15, 2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J