Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Another vs Union Of India & Ors on 10 March, 2015
Author: Debasish Kar Gupta
Bench: Debasish Kar Gupta
Sn 10.3.15 W.P.5126(W) of 2015
5
SUPERFAST PARCEL SERVICE PRIVATE LIMITED &
ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Mr. Pantu Deb Roy
Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy
Mr. R. Roychowdhury
Mr. Mainak Gupta
..for the petitioners
Mr. Saptarshi Roy
..for the respondents
This writ application is taken up for final disposal with the consent of the parties.
This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent no.4 under his memo no.COM/G-27/Parcel-Lease/VPH/12869- 12870 dated February 16, 2015.
By virtue of the impugned order, the representation of the petitioners dated January 27, 2015 was rejected. The above representation was submitted by the petitioners for extension of the lease contract in respect of 23 tonne VPH in train no.12869/12870 from Howrah to CSTM on round trip for a period of three months in accordance with the condition prescribed in Clause No.20.1 of the agreement dated February 6, 2012.
According to Mr. Pantu Deb Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, the impugned order was cryptic and no reason was assigned for rejecting the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the condition prescribed in Clause No.20.1 of the agreement. It is also submitted by him that they are ready to pay the revised reserved price for allowing them to continue with the contract in terms of the Clause No.20.1 of the above agreement.
It is submitted by Mr. Saptarshi Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent authorities that there is a scope of escalation of reserved price during the intervening period. Therefore, in the event of allowing the petitioners to continue with that contract for a period of three months the authorities may suffer loss. It is further submitted by him that the revised reserved price is yet to be fixed.
Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also after considering the fact and circumstances of this case, I find that the order was cryptic. No material is made available before this Court to show that the impugned decision was taken on the basis of the reasons for which the petitioners were not entitled to get the benefit of Clause No.20.1 of the agreement under reference. It is not in dispute that the new contract is yet to be finalized. Considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that they are willing to pay revised reserved price, if any, to enjoy the benefit of extension for a period of three months without examining the scope of realization of revised price from the petitioner. No other reason is shown to the Court in support of rejecting the representation of the petitioners.
In view of the above, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
The respondent no.2 is directed to extend the lease contract under reference in favour of the petitioners in terms of Clause No.20.1 of the lease contract dated February 6, 2012 subject to the payment of revised reserved price, if any, for the period of functioning of the petitioners during the extended period of three months. Since the revised reserved price is yet to be fixed the petitioners will pay reserved price at the existing rate till fixation of the revised reserved price.
The petitioners are further directed to pay the balance amount for enjoying the benefit of extension of the lease contract on the basis of the revised reserved price within a period of seven days from the date of information of such price to the petitioners.
This writ application is thus disposed of.
There will be, however, no order as to costs.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the parties on priority basis.
(Debasish Kar Gupta,J)