Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/16 vs The Union Of India And 6 Ors on 12 June, 2025
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010042512024
2025:GAU-AS:7720
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Linked Case : WP(C)/1117/2024
CITY LINK EXPRESS
ALU GODAM GALI
ATHGAON
GUWAHATI
ASSAM-781001
VERSUS
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
781011, ASSAM
2:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
-781011, ASSAM
3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OPERATING MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON-781011
ASSAM
4:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER (C)
LUMDING
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
-781011
Page No.# 2/16
ASSAM
5:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER
LUMDING DIVISION
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON-781011
ASSAM
6:THE FA AND CAO
N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON
-781011
ASSAM
7:THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR
N.F. RAILWAY KAMAKHYA.
------------
Advocate for : MR. K P MAHESWARI
Advocate for : DY.S.G.I. appearing for THE UNION OF INDIA AND 6 ORS
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 12-06-2025 For the petitioners/appellants : Ms. M. Sharma, Advocate Mr. M. Kalita, Advocate or respondent(s) : Mr. H. K. Gupta, CGC
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR 12.06.2025 Heard Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondent Union of India.
2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to a Notice of termination dated Page No.# 3/16 17.02.2024, issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, N.F. Railway, Lumding (respondent No. 5 herein) proposing to terminate the contract entered into with the petitioner for operation of Parcel Van (VP) by Train No. 12520-12519 Ex. Kamakhya (KYQ) -Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) and back from Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) to Kamakhya (KYQ) weekly, on round trip basis, and also floating of fresh tender for the aforesaid work of operation of Parcel Van (VP) by Train No. 12520-12519.
3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue involved in the present proceeding, in brief, are noticed herein below:
The respondent No. 5, vide a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 28.03.2022, had invited tenders from valid registered leaseholders in Category 'A' of Originating Railway Division/Zone or destination Railway Division/Zone for leasing of Parcel Van (VP), on round trip basis, for a period of 5 (five) years on payment of lump sum rates for transportation of their parcels. Amongst the trains against which the tenders were called for, also included Train No. 12520/12519 Ex. Kamakhya (KYQ) - Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) - Kamakhya (KYQ) on weekly basis. The petitioner herein submitted the amount required for registration as a leaseholder on 29.03.20222. On processing of the said application of the petitioner, the respondent No. 5, vide a Certificate dated 30.03.2022, certified that the petitioner was registered as a category 'A' leaseholder over Lumding Divison of the N.F. Railway. The said registration was valid for a period of 5 (five) years from 30.03.2022 to 29.03.2027. Having been registered as a leaseholder, the petitioner submitted his bid in pursuance of the said NIT dated 28.03.2021. The bid submitted by the petitioner being found to be suitable and the rates offered by the petitioner being the highest, the respondent No. 5 issued a Letter of Acceptance (LOA) dated 09.06.2022 to the petitioner informing him that his bid for leasing of one 24 Ton Parcel Van (LVPH) on round trip basis Ex. KYQ-LTT-KYQ by train No. 12520-12519 Mumbai LTT AC Express had been accepted @ Rs. 3,18,786/-
(Rupees Three Lakh Eighteen Thousand Seven Hundred Eighty-six), per round trip per VP, for the period of five years. In pursuance to issuance of the said LOA, the Page No.# 4/16 petitioner deposited the Security Deposit amount and an agreement dated 31.08.2022 was executed between the petitioner and the respondent railway authorities for operation of the said Parcel Van (VP). The petitioner thereafter continued its operation in the matter.
As the petitioner was continuing its operation of the Parcel Van (VP) in terms of the agreement executed between him and the railway authorities, a development occasioned in the matter. The respondent railway authorities extended the running of the train No. 12520-12519 from Kamakhya (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL) and the said train now was to operate from Agartala (AGTL) - Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) - Agartala (AGTL). Agartala (AGTL) station was now the originating station of the train in place of Kamakhya (KYQ) station. The said extension having been made, the petitioner herein was directed by the respondent railway authorities to operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him from Agartala station (AGTL) by paying freight charges on pro-rata basis. The said operation of Parcel Van (VP) with the extended distance from Kamakhya (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL) being not viable according to its estimation, the petitioner, vide a communication dated 25.10.2023, expressed its unwillingness to operate the Parcel Van (VP) for the extended portion from KYQ to AGTL. However, the petitioner stated in the said communication that it was willing to continue with the operation of the Parcel Van (VP) from KYQ to LTT for the remaining period of the contract.
The operation of the Parcel Van (VP) for the extended portion from KYQ to AGTL being denied by the petitioner and resultantly loss of revenue occasioning to the railways, One Month's Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 came to be issued to the petitioner herein. In the said notice, it was contended that due to the unwillingness of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) on the extended portion, the railway was losing revenue for running the Parcel Van (VP) empty from KYQ to AGTL and back to KYQ station. Further, it was projected that attachment/detachment of Parcel Van (VP) was not possible at KYQ within the scheduled stoppage time of 5 Page No.# 5/16 (five) minutes and regular cases of detention of train at KYQ station beyond its scheduled time was causing operational constraints and, accordingly, the competent authority had decided to terminate the contract and to issue a fresh auction notice in the matter.
Even prior to issuance of the Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024, a fresh E- auction Notice dated 15.02.2024 was issued by the respondent railway authorities for leasing of Parcel Van (VP) by Train No. 12520/12519 from Ex. Lokmanya Tilak Terminus, Mumbai (LTT) - Agartala (AGTL) - Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT). Being aggrieved with the said One Month's Notice of Termination as well as the issuance of E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding.
4. Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the dispute in the matter had arisen on the extension of the running of the train from KYQ to AGTL, i.e. beyond the initial originating station at KYQ, and the petitioner being directed to also operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him from the extended station, i.e. AGTL, and the petitioner having refused to operate the Parcel Van (VP) from AGTL on the ground that it was not economically viable to the it, the respondents have proceeded to issue the impugned Notice dated 17.02.2024. It is contended that as provided in the provisions of Clause 17 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the railway authorities, in the eventuality of extension of train, or increase in frequency of train occasioning in the matter, the leaseholder is required to be permitted to continue his lease between the pair of stations mentioned in the contract assuming that the lease is being operated to/from an intermediate station, as the case may be, and this arrangement will continue till the expiry of the contractual period.
5. Ms. Sharma, by referring to the provisions of Clause 17, more particularly to the provisions of sub-Clause 3 of Clause 17, submits that in the event the leaseholder is Page No.# 6/16 not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations for which the contract has been executed, then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders only for the newly extend portion. Ms. Sharma has contended that the said provisions being already incorporated in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 for a period of 5 (five) years, on the extension of the originating station from KYQ to AGTL the respondent authorities were required to comply with the provisions so incorporated in the agreement and to issue a fresh tender only in respect of the extended portion. Ms. Sharma submits that the petitioner not having refused to operate the Parcel Van (VP) between KYQ to LTTE, for which it was so settled, no default on the part of the petitioner in the matter can be said to have so occasioned requiring the respondents to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner herein.
6. With regard to the contention of the respondent railways in the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 about the operational constraints caused by the regular detention of the train at KYQ station beyond its scheduled stoppage of five minutes, Ms. Sharma has referred to the provisions of Clause 8.23 of the agreement to contend that the railway authorities had undertaken to provide three hours free time from the time when the Parcel Van is placed in position for loading or unloading of parcels, in case the leased Parcel Van is placed at a separate terminal at originating or destination station. Accordingly, she submits that on the said count also, under the provisions included in the existing agreement, the respondents could not have taken a coercive action against the petitioner in the matter.
In the above premises, Ms. Sharma submits that the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 along with the E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024 would mandate interference by this Court.
7. Per contra, Mr. H. Gupta, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents has contended that the provisions of the agreement executed Page No.# 7/16 between the petitioner and the respondent railways provides to the effect that the railway authorities reserve the right to terminate the contract/agreement for any reason whatsoever after serving one month's notice to the leaseholder. He submits that the railway authorities having issued the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 to the petitioner granting one month's time for termination of the contract and also by disclosing the reasons existing for issuance of such notice, and the same being in consonance with the terms and conditions provided in the contract, it is not permissible for the petitioner to assail the said notice.
8. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that after extension of the originating station of the train to Agartala (AGTL), the stoppage time of the train at the Kamakhya station (KYQ) was reduced to 5 (five) minutes. However, it was found that on account of loading of the Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner, the train was required to be detained at the Kamakhya station (KYQ) for longer duration causing inconvenience to the travelling passengers, resulting in complaints being made, and also operational inconvenience had occurred on account of the train running late. It is also submitted that as the petitioner had refused to operate the Parcel Van (VP) between the extended portion, i.e. KYQ to AGTL, the railways had incurred loss of revenue as the Parcel Van (VP) had to be run empty between KYQ and AGTL and, consequently, respondent railway authorities were left with no other alternative but to terminate the contract in question and, accordingly, in terms of the provisions incorporated in the agreement in this connection, the Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024 came to be so issued. Mr. Gupta has further submitted that the said Termination Notice is also in tune with the provisions for termination of the lease, as provided under the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy of the Railways. Accordingly, he submits that the challenge to the Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024 would not mandate acceptance from this Court.
9. Mr. Gupta, with regard to the challenge made by the petitioner to the E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024 and the contentions raised by the petitioner that the same was issued even before completion of one month from the date of issuance of the One Page No.# 8/16 Month Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024, has submitted that the E-auction Notice was issued so as to ensure that the fresh contract is in place and can be made effective after expiry of one month from the date of issuance of the Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024 so that operation of the Parcel Van (VP) is not affected or lapsed. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and the same would be called upon to be dismissed.
10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the material available on record.
11. After the LOA dated 09.06.2022 was issued to the petitioner for leasing 24 Ton Parcel Van (LVPH) on round trip basis Ex. KYQ-LTT-KYQ by train No. 12520-12519 Mumbai LTT AC Express, the petitioner made the requisite Security Deposit of Rs. 10,22,188/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Twenty-two Thousand One Hundred Eight-eight). Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent railway authorities on 31.08.2022. The relevant Clauses of the said agreement, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present matter, are extracted herein below:
"8.0 General terms and conditions of the scheme:
*** *** *** 8.23. Three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position, shall be allowed for loading or unloading of parcels in case the leased Parcel Vans placed at separate terminal at originating and destination station.
8.24 Any detention caused to the train on account of loading/unloading of parcels on the part of leaseholder will render him liable for payment of demurrage/wharfage charges as applicable to public. In case detention to a train beyond the schedule stoppage on account of loading/unloading of the parcels in the leased parcel van by the leaseholder, leaseholder shall be liable to pay a fine as imposed by the Railway Administration. In case of repeated incidences of detention of train at intermediate station on the part of the leaseholder, the Railway Administration shall have the right to impose higher fine or terminate lease contract.
*** *** ***
17.0 Extension of train/increase in frequency of train:
Page No.# 9/16
17.1 In case a train in which parcel space has been leased out is extended beyond its initial originating station or beyond its initial destination station, then the leaseholder will be permitted to continue his lease between the pair of stations mentioned in his contract. It will be assumed that the lease is being operated to/from an intermediate station as the case may be. This arrangement will continue till the expiry of the contractual period in the normal course. 17.2 However, if the leaseholder wants to extend his lease to cover the newly extended portion also then the same may be extended and lump sum leased freight charged will be increased on pro-rata basis as per his existing lease charges for the extra distance covered.
17.3 However, in case the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations for which the contract has been executed then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion.
17.4 In case of increase of frequency of weekly/bi-weekly/tri-weekly trains, the current lease will be extended for the same leaseholder in case he is willing for the same at the existing lump sum leased freight rate, for the increased number of trips.
17.5 Whenever there is change in originating or terminating station or short termination of service of a train by Railway Administration and leaseholder of existing contract is not willing to continue the contract, he may be allowed to do so. In such cases, Security Deposit of the leaseholder will be refunded een on less than 60 days notice, provided CCM certifies that Railway is not in a position to run the service after obtaining views of COM. In case trains run via diverted route or not terminating/originating at/from its original terminating/ originating station due to natural calamities like earthquake, floods, breach etc., leaseholder shall be exempted, if he desires so on making an application to CCM, to pay lease freight on days(s) of such disruption provided CCM certifies the operational constraints in consultation with COM."
12. The petitioner, after the Parcel Van was allotted to him and on execution of the agreement, was operating the same after making the requisite payment. However, while the petitioner was so operating the LVPH allotted to him, the railway authorities extended the originating station of the train in question from Kamakhya (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL), and the train now was to run from Agartala (AGTL) to Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT), Mumbai and back to Agartala (AGTL). On such extension of the originating point of the said train, the petitioner herein was required by the railway authorities to operate the leased out Parcel Van also for the extended portion, i.e. Page No.# 10/16 AGTL- KYQ - AGTL. The petitioner, on examining the viability of operating the said Parcel Van on the extended portion i.e. AGTL- KYQ - AGTL, found the same to be not economically viable and, accordingly refused to operate the said Parcel Van between AGTL- KYQ - AGTL by paying freight charges on pro-rata basis. The petitioner having refused to operate the Parcel Van on the extended portion, i.e. between AGTL- KYQ - AGTL, the respondent No. 5 issued a One Month's Notice of Termination to the petitioner dated 17.02.2024. The grounds on which the said Notice of Termination was so issued were stated therein. The said Notice of Termination, which contains the grounds so taken by the respondent railway authorities for termination of the contract, being relevant, the same is extracted herein-below:
"Office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Lumding.
No. C/442/VP-Leasing/LVPH-1/12520-12519 Dated 17.02.2024 To City Link Express, Aloo Godam Gali, S J. Road, Athgaon, Guwahati-781001.
Contact No-9435146647, 9435016902 Subject: One Month's Notice of Termination.
Ref: i) This Office LOA no. C/442/VP-Leasing/LVPH-1/12520-12519 dated 09.06.2022.
ii) This office letter no. C/442/VP-Leasing/LVPH-1/12520-12519 dated 17.10.2023.
iii) Contract Agreement Clause No. 21 Dated 31.08.2022 duly signed by you.
Vide ref(ii) above you were requested to submit your willingness to operate the lease contract of Parcel Van (VP) by Train no. 12520-12519 Ex. AGTL-LTT- AGTL on the increased rate (on pro-rata basis) as decided by the competent authority but you have denied to operate the same with extended portion vide your letter dated 20.10.2023.
Due to your unwillingness to operate the tender with extended portion, Railway is losing revenue for running the Parcel Van (V) as empty form KYQ to Page No.# 11/16 AGTL and back to KYQ station. In addition, due to operational constraint attachment/detachment of Parcel Van (VP) is not possible at KYQ station within scheduled stoppage time of 5 (five) minutes. Further, regular cases of detention of train at JYQ station beyond its scheduled time is reported causing operational constraints.
As per Clause-21.1 of the contract agreement dated 31.08.2022 and Para- 33.2 of FM Circular No. 6 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014, Railway shall have the right to terminate the contract/agreement for any reason whatsoever after serving one month's notice to the leaseholder. However, Railway shall reserve the right to terminate the contract as a punitive measure without any notice and at any time in case of breach of agreement or serious violation of any of the stipulations of policy/railway rules by the leaseholder or in case of operational exigencies.
In view of the operational constraints stated above and to avoid loss of revenue for running empty Parcel Van (VP) Ex. KYQ to AGTL & back to KYQ, competent authority has therefore decided to terminate the contract and call fresh tender through e-auction.
This letter may be treated as one month's notice of termination.
Sd/-
(R. K. Mahato) Sr. DCM/LMG"
The railway authorities had also on 15.02.2024 issued an E-auction Notice for operation of the leased out Parcel Van (VP) for train No. 12520-12519 Ex. AGTL-LTT-AGTL.
13. Considering the issues arising in the present proceeding, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 01.03.2024, was pleased to stay the impugned Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 and was further pleased to also stay the E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024.
14. From the materials brought on record as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the issue arising for consideration by this Court is the validity of the impugned Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024. It is seen that on the conclusion reached by this Court with regard to the challenge made to the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024, the further challenge made to the E-auction Notice dated 15.02.2024 would mandate consideration.
Page No.# 12/16
15. A perusal of the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024, extracted herein- above, would go to reveal that the same was so issued on two grounds. The first ground was that on account of the unwillingness of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him also for the extended portion of the running of the train, i.e. Kamakhya station (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL) and back to Kamakhya (KYQ), the railway authorities were losing revenue as the Parcel Van was required to be run empty between KYQ-AGTL-KYQ. The second ground assigned was that on extension of the running of the train to Agartala (AGTL) from Kamakhya (KYQ), the scheduled stoppage of the train at Kamakhya station was reduced to 5 (five) minutes, however, on account of loading/unloading of Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner at Kamakhya station (KYQ), the train was required to be detained beyond the scheduled stoppage time resulting in operational constraints.
16. The grounds highlighted by the respondent railways for termination of the agreement, is being examined by this Court.
17. With regard to the first reason assigned for termination of the contract, the reason assigned by the respondents is that due to the petitioner's unwillingness to operate the Parcel Van for the extended portion of running of the train from Kamakhya (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL) and back to Kamakhya (KYQ), the railways were incurring loss of revenue and, accordingly, the contract awarded to the petitioner was liable to be terminated. The said ground would be required to be examined in the light of the provisions of Clause 17 incorporated in the agreement dated 31.08.2022 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. Clause 17.1 of the Contract Agreement in question provides that in case a train in which parcel space has been leased out is extended beyond its initial originating station or beyond its initial destination station, then the leaseholder will be permitted to continue his lease between the pair of stations mentioned in his contract. It further provides that it would be assumed that the lease is being operated to/from an intermediate station as the case may be and this arrangement will continue till the expiry of the contractual period in the normal Page No.# 13/16 course.
Clause 17.2 of the Contract Agreement provides that if the leaseholder wants to extend his lease to cover the newly extended portion also, then the same may be extended and lump sum leased freight charge will be increased on pro-rata basis as per his existing lease charges for the extra distance covered.
Clause 17.3 mandates that in the event the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations, for which the contract has been executed, then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion.
18. The provisions of Clause 17 of the contract agreement, more particularly, the provisions of Clause 17.3 having not been amended, the same continues to remain in force. Hence, on the refusal of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) of the train in question beyond the originating station and terminating station, for which the agreement had been executed, the contract entered into with the petitioner could not have been proposed to be terminated inasmuch as Clause 17.3 of the contract agreement clearly provides that in the event the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations, for which the contract has been executed, then the competent railway authorities will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion only. Hence, as provided in Clause 17.3, on the refusal of the petitioner to operate of Parcel Van (VP) between the newly extended portion, the respondent railway authorities, instead of issuing the impugned One Month's Notice of Termination, ought to have floated fresh tenders only for the newly extended portion, i.e. Kamakhya station (KYQ) - Agartala (AGTL). Accordingly, the issuance of the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 on the ground that the railways were losing revenue on account of running of the Parcel Van (VP) in question empty between Kamakhya station (KYQ) to Agartala (AGTL) and back, would not mandate acceptance by this Court. Accordingly, the said ground for issuance of the Page No.# 14/16 impugned Notice of Termination to the petitioner would mandate interference by this Court.
19. The second ground assigned in the Notice of Termination pertains to the operational difficulties being faced by the railway authorities at Kamakhya station (KYQ) on account of detention of the train in question beyond its scheduled stoppage because of the loading/unloading of the leased out Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner herein. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the agreement entered into with the petitioner, more particularly, Clause 8.23 thereof mandates that the leaseholder, i.e. the petitioner herein, would be provided three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position for loading or unloading of parcels in the leased out Parcel Van (VP). Further, Clause 8.24 of the agreement mandates that any detention caused to the train on account of loading/unloading of parcels on the part of leaseholder will render him liable for payment of demurrage/wharfage charges as applicable to public. It further mandates that that in the event of detention of the train beyond the scheduled stoppage on account of loading/unloading of the parcels by the leaseholder, the leaseholder shall be liable to pay a fine as imposed by the Railway Administration and, in case of repeated incidences of detention of train at intermediate station on the part of the leaseholder, the Railway Administration shall have the right to impose higher fine or terminate the lease contract.
The provisions of Clause 8.24 cannot be read in isolation and the same have to be considered in the light of the provisions of Clause 8.23. The petitioner having not been provided three hours free time for loading/unloading of the Parcel Van (VP) in terms of Clause 8.23, the respondent railway authorities cannot, on account of the reduction of the scheduled stoppage of the train at Kamakhya station (KYQ) to 5 (five) minutes on the extension of the running of the train to Agartala (AGTL) from Kamakhya (KYQ), proceed to terminate the contract with the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Clause 8.24, without reckoning the provisions of Clause 8.23. The respondents were required to put in place a suitable mechanism to facilitate the Page No.# 15/16 loading/unloading of the leased Parcel Van (VP) allotted to the petitioner and to continue operating the said leased Parcel Van (VP) in terms of the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent railways inasmuch as, as observed above, the various clauses of the contract agreement dated 31.08.2022 having not been amended, the same continue to remain in force and, therefore, are binding on the petitioner and also equally binding on the respondents, which the respondent railway authorities cannot ignore. Further, it is to be noticed that under the agreement executed by the petitioner and the Railways, the Parcel Van continues to be operated between KYQ and LTT, even after the extension of the originating station of the train from KYQ to AGTL and as such it is the duty of the Railways to ensure execution of the contract by the petitioner in terms of the provisons of the said agreement.
20. Accordingly, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in this matter, this Court is of the considered view that the second ground assigned by the railway authorities in the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 would not also mandate acceptance.
21. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 is liable to be interfered with and, accordingly, the same stands set aside.
22. As a consequence to the interference with the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024, the E-auction notice dated 15.02.2024 cannot be sustained and the same is also set aside.
23. Having interfered with the impugned Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 as well as the E-auction notice dated 15.02.2024, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him, in terms of the agreement dated 31.08.2022, between Kamakhya station (KYQ) and Lokmanya Tilak Terminus (LTT) till the period for which the same was so allotted to him. It is further Page No.# 16/16 provided that in the event of the petitioner committing any default with regard to operation of the leased out Parcel Van (VP), the respondent railway authorities will be at liberty to take such consequential steps in the matter in terms of the agreement dated 31.08.2022 executed by and between the petitioner and the respondent railway authorities, as well as the comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy of the Railways in place.
24. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be not order as to costs.
JUDGE Comparing Assistant