Telangana High Court
Mohammed Akram vs Union Of India on 11 September, 2024
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.BHASKAR REDDY
WRIT PETITION Nos.7593 and 7895 of 2023; 1290, 2539, 10189,
12390, 12413, 12416, 12420, 12447, 12448, 14619, 14620,
14666 of 2024
COMMON ORDER:
The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners questioning the action of respondents in insisting them to pay the scanning charges @ Rs.5/- for leased package and @ Rs.10/- for non-leased package for each parcel, stating that the said collection of amount is contrary to the Agreements entered by them for transportation of parcels in the respective trains as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreements and prayed for appropriate reliefs.
3. Writ Petition No.14619 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered lease holder and parcel booking agent and participated in the tenders for transportation of parcels from Secunderabad to 2 Danapur (SC to DNR) by allotting space in SLR-F1 in Train No.12791 and entered into a lease agreement with the respondents on 27.10.2022 for a period of 2 years i.e, from 18.11.2022 to 17.11.2024. According to the petitioner, the contract value for supply of the above parcels is Rs.2,46,61,381.50/-. It is also case of the petitioner that in terms of the conditions of the agreement, he has deposited security deposit of Rs.5,74,875/- and he is entitled to transport the parcels in Train in SLR-F1 as per the space allotted by the Railways in SC-DNR SF Express No.12791 and in terms of the said lease, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.31,500/- per Round trip and he is performing his contract without any complaint whatsoever since the date of agreement. While-so, the respondent No.1 has issued e-auction tender notification vide auction Catalog No.SC-PSCAN-0424-1 dated 06.04.2024 and auction date is fixed on 22.04.2024 directing to scan every parcel through the Scanning Machines. The respondent- authorities conducted auction and gave lease to the private agencies to install scanning machines in the Railway Stations. It is the case of the petitioner that he was directed to pay extra charges for scanning the parcels, sent by him under the leased trains. It is further case of the petitioner that he was burdened with the extra scanning charges @ Rs.5/- for leased package and @ Rs.10/- for non-leased package for each parcel. It is stated that since the said charges being collected contrary to the 3 terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner prayed to exempt from collecting scanning charges. It is further stated that it is the responsibility of the Railways to maintain the scanners installed for the safety and security of the passengers and the lease holders and agents cannot be burdened with scanning charges. It is further case of the petitioner that lease deed does not specify about collection of scanning charges, except mentioning about developmental charges @ 2% on license fee/leasing charges + GST and also paying lease amount with escalation cost for 4th and 5th year of lease period. It is further case of the petitioner that every day there are more than 5000 parcels sent from Secunderabad Railway Station to various destinations and because of scanning there would be delay and parcels will not be delivered on time as the time for loading is very limited in the trains. It is stated that in view of additional scanning charges, the petitioner is suffering with hardship and ultimately, prayed to allow the writ petition.
5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the respondents have not installed the parcel scanners in the Secunderabad Parcel Office and the petitioner anticipating collection of scanning charges has filed the present writ petition and therefore, the same is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Relying on Clause 8.1 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, it is stated that 4 the development charge as well as any other charge are levied by the Railway Administration on the freight over and above the lump-sum leased freight. It is further stated that as per the above clause, the contractor is bound to pay another charges levied by the Railway Administration which include scanning charges. It is also stated that the scanners are introduced on PPP model, and hence the respondents have fixed the scanning charges @ Rs.5/- for leased package and @ Rs.10/- for non-leased package per parcel. It is also stated that as per Clause 8.3 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, to ensure safety and security at parcel offices and of running of trains, scanning of parcels will be mandatory upon installation of scanners. As per the policy of the railways, scanning machines have been installed in the Railway Stations on PPP model and in terms of the special conditions of the contract, the petitioner is liable to pay charges as fixed by the respondents. It is further stated by the respondents that keeping in mind the public safety and security, the Government as a policy has taken a decision to install the scanning machines and to prevent incidents relating to the bomb explosions while loading and unloading in the respective trains. It is also stated that the procurement of parcel scanners involves huge investment of capital and installation charges, as the same would cause burden on the State exchequer. Procurement of installation machines have been proposed on PPP model. As per the scheme, the 5 contractor will have to procure the equipment, deploy staff and maintain the operations for which a nominal fee of Rs.10/- per package for non-lease and Rs.5/- per lease package would be charged. It is the specific case of the respondents that under Clause 8.1 of Special Conditions of contract, they are having power to impose scanning charges and the said action does not amount to any illegality warranting interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, more particularly the matters relating to the contract and ultimately, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. In W.P.Nos.7593 and 7895 of 2023, 1290 and 2539 of 2024, separate counter affidavits have been filed stating that the parcel scanners were already installed at Hyderabad Station on PPP Model. It is further stated that in terms of Clauses 8.1 and 8.3 of Special Conditions of the Contract the petitioner is paying scanning charges for leasing of space for parcels and as such the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are misconceived and thus prayed for dismissal of the same.
7. Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record.
8. The respondents/Railways issued e-auction notification and the petitioners herein participated in the tenders issued by the 6 respondents and being successful bidders entered into agreements with respondents on various dates. It is the case of the petitioners that in terms of the agreements, they are entitled to transport the parcels in the respective trains. As per the conditions of the lease/agreement, the petitioner in W.P.No.14619 of 2024 was allotted 731 trips with carrying capacity of 3.9 metric tones @ Rs.31,500/- including 2% Development Charges + GST including cess @ 5%. The agreement also reveals that the contract is covered by the Special Conditions of the Contract for a contract value of Rs.2,46,61,381.50/-. Clause 8.0 of the agreement reads as under:
"8.0 Levy of surcharges:
8.1 The contractor will have to pay 'Development charge' as well as any other charges levied by the Railway Administration on the freight, over and above the lump-sum leased freight.
8.2 The surcharge leviable for bulky articles will not be applicable under the scheme as handling/loading/unloading is done by the contractor.
8.3 To ensure safety and security at Parcel Offices and of running trains, scanning of parcels will be mandatory upon installation of scanners. As a matter of policy Railways are installing scanners on PPP model, hence contractors are bound to pay scanning charges or any other fees as may be fixed/levied by the Railway Administration or through its authorised representative."
9. A careful reading of aforesaid Clause 8.3 makes it clear that to ensure safety and security at Parcel Offices and of running trains, scanning of parcels will be mandatory upon installation of scanners.
The petitioners having agreed with the said terms and conditions, had entered into agreements with the respondents. Since it is the case of the respondents that Special Conditions for Contracts for 7 leasing of parcel space in Brake Vans/parcel Vans are also applicable in terms of the contracts entered with the petitioners, the said conditions would apply equally to the petitioners and they are liable to pay additional charges as specified by the Railways. It is agreed in the contract that the contractors will be liable to pay development charges @ 2% of license fee/ leasing charges + GST (as applicable) for the given lot and the charges will be applicable over and above the license fee/leasing charges as specified in the contract. Other charges mentioned in the lot details or asset details shall also be borne by the contractor. A reading of Clause 8.1 of the Special Conditions for Contracts in-conjunction with Clause 8.3 makes it clear that the respondents are entitled to collect scanning charges.
10. Sofaras W.P.Nos.10189, 12390, 12413, 12416, 12420, 12447, 12448, 14619, 14620 and 14666 of 2024 are concerned, it is stated by the respondents that so far they have not installed the scanning machines in the Secunderabad Railway Station as on the date of filing of Counter affidavit i.e, 20.06.2024 and the period of contract of the petitioner is expiring on 17.11.2024 and even if any additional burden is levied, that is only for a limited period. As such, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the action of the 8 respondents and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners fail and are liable to be dismissed.
11. Sofaras W.P.Nos.7593 and 7895 of 2023, 1290 and 2539 of 2024 are concerned, since it is stated that in terms of Clauses 8.1 and 8.3 of Special Conditions for the Contract the petitioners are paying scanning charges for leasing of parcels by agreeing the terms and conditions, they are not entitled to question the said conditions of the agreements as arbitrary or illegal. In view of the same, the said Writ Petitions also deserve to be dismissed.
12. Accordingly, these Writ Petitions are dismissed.
As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any in these writ petitions, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
_________________________ C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J Date: 11.09.2024 scs