Patna High Court - Orders
M/S Sri Sai Logistics vs The Union Of India & Ors on 21 October, 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.3214 of 2011
M/S Sri Sai Logistics, a proprietorship firm having its office near
commerce Collage, Rajendra Nagar, Patna-20 through its proprietor Sri
Ravi Shankar son of Late B.P.Sinha.
.......Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Director Freight Marketing,
Ministry of Railways, (Railway Board), Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-
110001.
2. The Director Freight Marketing, Ministry of Railways, (Railway
Board), Rail Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
3. The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, B-Block,
Dighi, Hajipur, District-Vaishali (Bihar).
....Respondents.
-----------
For the petitioner : M/s Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Raju Giri & Nikhil Agrawal, Advocates.
For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Tiwary, Advocate.
-------
05/ 21.10.20111. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs:-
i) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 28.11.2008 issued by the ACM, Goods, East Central Railway, Hajipur (hereinafter referred to as the „ECR‟) by which it has been communicated to the petitioner that the competent authority has decided to delete, para-6.4 of the agreement entered with the petitioner on 2nd March, 2007 for leasing of one parcel van in train No.2387/2388, between Rajendra Nagar Terminal-New Delhi (as contained in Annexure-3).
ii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the further communications vide letters dated 28.11.2009, 13.1.2010 and 19.12.2010 of the ECR to the petitioner that the request of the petitioner of restoration of para 6.4 of the agreement is not acceptable to them (as contained in Annexures-5, 8 & 11).
iii) To issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to -2- treat, Clause 6.4 of the agreement as operative and to extend the benefit of the said clause to the petitioner forthwith.
iv) To further issue an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents ECR to refund and/or adjust against future liabilities, the money realised by the respondent Railways from the petitioner of those days on which the parcel van went empty and of which the petitioner had in advance informed, in terms of para 6.4. of the aforesaid agreement.
v) To any other relief or reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. Although learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner but it cannot be disputed that the facts of this case is exactly similar to the facts of another case bearing CWJC No.657 of 2009 filed by M/s Scorpion Epress Pvt. Ltd. in which similar reliefs were also prayed for. The said case was decided by a bench of this Court vide order dated 26.03.2009 (Annexure-6) after coming to the following findings:-
"In view of the facts not being in dispute and it being a matter of mere interpretation of the agreement and the powers of the respective parties thereunder, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of ABL International Limited & Another -Versus- Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited & Others since reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 553 as also in the case of Food Corporation of India & Another -Versus- SEIL Limited & Others (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 440, the objection cannot be sustained.
One must not forget that Railways is State within the meaning of Article-12 of the Constitution of India for the purposes of Part-III of the Constitution of India and is, as such, bound by the principles enshrined in Article-14 of the Constitution of India which, inter alia, provides for fairness and reasonableness in all its actions including in contractual matters. Railways are not exempt from -3- ordinary law of the land. The agreement, once reduced to writing, binds both the parties and parties are bound by the contractual obligations contained therein and no party has right to relieve itself of its contractual obligations much less unilaterally in the manner in which it has been done in the present case.
Thus found, the action of the Railways cannot be accepted as valid in law. It is dehors the contract, contrary to the contract and is violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India being grossly arbitrary. The impugned letter dated 28.11.2008 informing the petitioner about deletion of Clause 6.4 cannot, thus, be sustained and is, accordingly, quashed. The consequence thereof is that Railways would be bound by Clause 6.4 of the contract with the petitioner for the full term of the contract till it is mutually agreed otherwise. Consequently, any money realized by the Railways, treating Clause 6.4 as deleted and not a part of the contract would be liable to be refunded and/or adjusted against future liability of petitioner under the contract.
The writ petition is, thus, allowed."
4. The said order of the learned Single Judge was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10.07.2009 passed in LPA No.612 of 2009 (Annexure-7).
5. It further transpires that the petitioner sent letter dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-11) to the respondent-authorities along with a copy of the aforesaid order of this court and seeking similar reliefs, but the said prayer was rejected by the respondents-authority vide order dated 09.12.2010 (Annexure-12) stating that M/s Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd. had been given the benefit of clause 6.4 (now deleted) through the order of the Court but other persons, who do not have the benefit of the order of the Court in their favour, cannot get benefit of old clause 6.4.
6. This ground of the respondents for rejecting the claim of the petitioner appears to be quite strange as it is apparent -4- from the said order that a principle of law had been laid down, which the authorities had to follow, if the claim and grounds raised are found to be similar to those in the said case law relied upon by the petitioner.
7. In the said circumstances, this writ petition is also allowed in terms of the aforesaid decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court dated 26.03.2009 passed in CWJC No.657 of 2009.
(S. N. Hussain, J.) Sunil