Delhi High Court
Manglam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 August, 2011
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16.08.2011
+W.P.(C) No.4310/2011 and C.M.No.8834/2011
Manglam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Joydeep Majumdar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral :
* 1 By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner in respect of parcel space of 4 tonnes (FSLR) in Train No. 2808-II Ex. HNZM to VKSP w.e.f. 11.9.2010 till 12.9.2010 in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy (CPLP) and clause 18 of the contract between the parties.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that a written lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for leasing of Parcel Space in Brake Vans of Train No.2808-II having carrying capacity of 04 tonnes from HNZM to VSKP for a period of three years i.e. 11.09.2007 to 10.09.2010 with a clause for extension of lease for further two years. That the petitioner vide letters dated 29.01.2010 and 15.07.2010 sought extension of the lease under the terms and conditions as stipulated in the CPLP as well as the contract and to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the respondent vide its letter dated 22.9.2010 granted extension provisionally only for a period of three months or till finalization of fresh tender whichever is earlier. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an unconditional extension for a period of two years in terms of the comprehensive parcel leasing policy as well as the contract and hence feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Mr.Anil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Kishan Freight Forwarders Vs. UOI (MANU/DE/2189/2011) decided on 2.6.2011 and is hence entitled to relief.
4. Mr. Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner was not granted extension of the contract in Train No. 2808-II as per Clause E of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and clause 18 of the Contract as the petitioner had defaulted/committed breach of the terms of the lease by overloading. Counsel thus submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of this court in Kishan Freight Forwarders case (Supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The only objection taken by the respondent is that extension of contract was not granted in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had violated the clause of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy by overloading. For better appreciation of clause 18 of the contract, the same is reproduced as under:
"Extension of lease contract:
Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years wherein the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract."
7. Undoubtedly, the said clause clearly stipulates that extension of the lease would be permissible only subject to the satisfactory performance of the lease holder and the second condition being, without there being any penalty imposed on the contractor for overloading or for violation of any provision of the contract. The petitioner has admitted at bar that there was only one instance of violation on its part when there was excess loading. Counsel for the respondent has also not disputed that there was a single instance of over loading on the part of the petitioner during the entire period of the lease.
8. This court in Kishan Freight Forwarders (Supra) has comprehensively dealt with all the issues and the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in the said case. In fact the respondent had granted provisional extension to the petitioner for a period of three months but with the condition that the same would come to an end even before the expiry of the said three months period if in the meanwhile, fresh tenders are finalized. It would be, therefore, quite evident that the petitioner was granted an extension despite the fact that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner once due to the over loading of the consignment. It is, therefore, quite apparent that the imposition of penalty by the respondent due to overloading of parcels by the lease holders is not being viewed seriously by the respondent to deny extension of the lease period as envisaged under Clause 18 of the said contract.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent is directed to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner for a period of two years w.e.f. 11.09.2010 till 12.09.2012 in terms of clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract for transportation of parcels of 4 tonnes (FSLR) from HNZM to VSKP in Train No. 2808-II.
10. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J AUGUST 16, 2011 dc