Full Text
Translation output
24 to 27, 29 to 32 & 36 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
W.P.(C) 7245/2013 & CM APPL. 15578/2013
AMRIT TRADINGH CO. Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate with Mr.Mohit Kumar and Mr.Chetan Rai
Wahi, Advocates.
W.P.(C) 7245/2013 & CM APPL. 15578/2013
AMRIT TRADINGH CO. Petitioner
Through Mr.Ashish Mohan, Advocate with Mr.Mohit Kumar and Mr.Chetan Rai
Wahi, Advocates.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondents
Through Mr.R.V.Sinha with Mr.A.S.Sinha, Advocates.
Through Mr.R.V.Sinha with Mr.A.S.Sinha, Advocates.
WITH
W.P.(C) 7249/2013 & CM APPL. 15582/2013
ANJANI PRABHA Petitioner
ANJANI PRABHA Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 8103/2013 & CM APPL. 17115/2013
DEEPAK KUMAR Petitioner
DEEPAK KUMAR Petitioner
VERSUS
2016:DHC:8637
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate with Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocates.
Through Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate with Mr. Preet Singh and Mr. Sukhdev Singh, Advocates.
WITH
W'.P.(C) 118/2014 & CM APPLs. 203/2014, 401/2014 AND
18808/2014 ANAND KUMAR SINGH Petitioner
18808/2014 ANAND KUMAR SINGH Petitioner
VERSUS
Through Mr.Preet Singh, Advocate.
WITH
W.P.(C) 656/2014 & CM APPLs. 1320/2014 AND 18872/2014
ANIL BAREJA Petitioner
ANIL BAREJA Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR Respondents
WITH
W.P.(C) 734/2014 & CM APPL.1475/2014
PARAMJEET SAINI Petitioner
PARAMJEET SAINI Petitioner
VERSUS
WITH
W.P.(C) 1003/2014& CM APPLs.2032-2033/2014
AMIT CARGO TRANSPORT SERVICE Petitioner
AMIT CARGO TRANSPORT SERVICE Petitioner
VERSUS
WITH
W.P.(C) 1652/2014 & CM APPL.3441/2014
M/S PACIFIC EXPRESS Petitioner
M/S PACIFIC EXPRESS Petitioner
VERSUS
UNON OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
Through Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devika Bhagat, Advocate.
And
Through Dr. Sarbjit Sharma, Advocate with Ms. Devika Bhagat, Advocate.
And
W.P.(C) 8436/2014 & CM APPL.19494/2014
"T RAMPAL Petitioner
"T RAMPAL Petitioner
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
17.10.2016 Present batch of writ petitions has been filed primarily restraining respondents from charging enhanced license fee in terms of Freight
Marketing Circular No.21 of 2013 dated 25"^ September, 2013. In the alternative, the prayer is for quashing paragraph 1 of the Amendment No. 16 dated 29"^ November, 2012 as well as for amending the Comprehensive
Parcel Leasing Policy and consequential Clause 3.5 of the draft Agreement read in conjunction with the rationalization of rates for luggage and parcel traffic effective from OU' October, 2013 circulated vide Freight Marketing
Circular No.21 of2013 dated 25"^ September, 2013.
Admittedly, neither any contract has been executed between the parties till date nor there is any possibility of executing the same as the tender term has come to an end. Consequently, none of the aforesaid prayers sought by the petitioners can be granted. Accordingly, present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of.
However, ifthe petitioners are ofthe view that they have suffered any loss on account of non-execution/non-award of the contract, they are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 17, 2016 js
17.10.2016 Present batch of writ petitions has been filed primarily restraining respondents from charging enhanced license fee in terms of Freight
Marketing Circular No.21 of 2013 dated 25"^ September, 2013. In the alternative, the prayer is for quashing paragraph 1 of the Amendment No. 16 dated 29"^ November, 2012 as well as for amending the Comprehensive
Parcel Leasing Policy and consequential Clause 3.5 of the draft Agreement read in conjunction with the rationalization of rates for luggage and parcel traffic effective from OU' October, 2013 circulated vide Freight Marketing
Circular No.21 of2013 dated 25"^ September, 2013.
Admittedly, neither any contract has been executed between the parties till date nor there is any possibility of executing the same as the tender term has come to an end. Consequently, none of the aforesaid prayers sought by the petitioners can be granted. Accordingly, present writ petitions and pending applications are disposed of.
However, ifthe petitioners are ofthe view that they have suffered any loss on account of non-execution/non-award of the contract, they are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.
Rights and contentions of all the parties are left open. This Court clarifies that it has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the controversy.
MANMOHAN, J OCTOBER 17, 2016 js
JUDGMENT