Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
C. Sivaprakash Rao vs Union Of India & Ors on 4 December, 2014
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1 11 04.12.14
. W.P. 31514 (W)_of 2014.
ab
C. Sivaprakash Rao
Vs
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. D. Saha Roy
Mr. R. Roy Chowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
... For the Petitioner.
Mr. Goutam Das
... For the Railways
In this writ petition, the petitioner wants to avail of the specifications contained in Clause (E) 4 of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy of 2006 formulated by the Railway authorities. As per the said clause, an existing holder of lease space is entitled to have his application for extension of the lease agreement decided upon on temporary basis for a period of three months after expiry of the contract period if there is delay in finalisation of new contract due to administrative delay. The petitioner had entered into an agreement for lease of parcel van by Train No. 8048/8047 from Guntakal and Shalimar-Guntakal for a period of three years and the said agreement was executed on 2nd December, 2009. The agreement was to lapse after three years. Before lapse of the term of the lease, the petitioner took the matter to the learned City Civil Court at Calcutta by filing an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 primarily seeking further two years' extension in terms of Sub- Clause 2 of Clause E. Clause E of the 2006 Policy provides:-
"(E) 1.Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years.
2. In case of Long Term Lease, on expiry of the contract 2 period, the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum lease freight rate.
3. Such extension will be subject to satisfactory performance by the lease holder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.
4. In case of expiry of contract period and non-
finalization of new contract due to administrative delays, temporary extension can be permitted by the CCM only once, for a period of 3 months".
The petitioner is still enjoying an order of status quo and this Court has been apprised that in term of the order of status quo, he has already availed of the two-year extension period. Now in this writ petition, the petitioner wants further extension of three months because of non-finalization of the agreement for the same lease space. On behalf of the Railways, no specific submission has been made to justify withholding of further extension and applicability of the 2006 Policy in the present case has also not been disputed. But in the given facts, in my opinion, the petitioner has indulged in forum shopping and I am not inclined to issue any mandatory direction in favour of the petitioner. If, however, the petitioner make an application for extension of the lease term as per Sub-Section 4 of Clause E of the 2006 Policy before the Railway authorities, the same may be decided upon within a period of seven days.
The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. 3 There shall, however be, no order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties as expeditiously as possible, in compliance of usual formalities.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.)