Delhi High Court
M/S Monopoly Carriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 16 August, 2011
Author: Kailash Gambhir
Bench: Kailash Gambhir
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: 16.08.2011
+ W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 and C.M.No.8830/2011
M/s.Monopoly Carriers & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. Joydeep Majumdar, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest? No
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.Oral :
* 1 By this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondent to unconditionally extend the lease of W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 1 of 7 the petitioner in respect of parcel space in Train No. 2410 Ex. HNZM to BSP w.e.f. 30.8.2010 till 29.8.2012 in terms of Clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy (CPLP) and clause 18 of the Contract between the parties.
2. Brief facts relevant for deciding the present petition are that a written lease agreement was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent No.2 for leasing of Parcel Space in AGC of Train No.2410 having carrying capacity of 1 tonne for the transportation of parcels from HNZM to BSP for a period of three years i.e. 30.08.2007 to 29.08.2010 with a clause for extension of lease for further two years. That the petitioner requested the respondent to extend the said lease for a further period of two years vide letters dated 11.02.2010 and 14.04.2010 and was surprised when the respondents vide their letter dated 13.09.2010 declined the said request and vide letter dated 22.09.2010 provisionally extended the lease for a period of three months or till finalization of fresh tender, whichever is earlier. As per the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an unconditional W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 2 of 7 extension for a period of two years in terms of the comprehensive parcel leasing policy as well as the contract and hence feeling aggrieved with the same, the petitioner has preferred the present petition.
3. Mr.Anil Goel, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the judgment of this court in Kishan Freight Forwarders Vs. UOI (MANU/DE/2189/2011) decided on 2.6.2011.
4. Mr.Mazumdar, counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the violation on the part of the petitioner was not only on account of the overloading of the parcels but even the train had to be detained because of the overloading. Counsel thus submits that the violation in the present case is rather of more serious nature, as the present case is not merely of overloading but of detention as well. Counsel for the respondent further submits that the petitioner was not granted extension of the contract in the said Train as per Clause E of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and clause 18 of the contract as the W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 3 of 7 petitioner had defaulted/committed breach of the terms of the lease by detaining the train for an excess of 20 minutes at Bhopal station and the petitioner had been found in breach of the said terms and conditions of the lease on one occasion. Counsel thus submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered by the judgment of this court in Kishan Freight Forwarders case (Supra).
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The only objection taken by the respondent is that extension of contract was not granted in favour of the petitioner as the petitioner had violated the clause of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner once for detaining the train for an excess of 20 minutes at Bhopal station. For better appreciation of clause 18 of the contract, the same is reproduced as under:
"Extension of lease contract:
Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years wherein the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 4 of 7 leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract."
7. Undoubtedly, the said clause clearly stipulates that extension of the lease would be permissible only subject to the satisfactory performance of the lease holder and the second condition being, without there being any penalty imposed on the contractor for overloading or for violation of any provision of the contract. The petitioner has admitted at bar that there was only one instance of violation on its part when there was detention due to over loading. Counsel for the respondent has also not disputed that there was a single instance of detention due to over loading on the part of the petitioner during the entire period of the lease.
8. This court in Kishan Freight Forwarders (Supra) has comprehensively dealt with all the issues and the controversy involved in the present case is squarely covered by the judgment in the said case. In fact the respondent had granted provisional extension to the petitioner for a period of three months but with the condition that the same would come to W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 5 of 7 an end even before the expiry of the said three months period if in the meanwhile, fresh tenders are finalized. It would be, therefore, quite evident that the petitioner was granted an extension despite the fact that the penalty was imposed upon the petitioner once due to detention due to over loading of the consignment. It is, therefore, quite apparent that the imposition of penalty by the respondent due to detention is not being viewed seriously by the respondent to deny extension of the lease period as envisaged under Clause 18 of the said contract.
9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the respondent is directed to unconditionally extend the lease of the petitioner for a period of two years w.e.f. 30.08.2010 till 29.08.2012 in terms of clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract for parcel space in AGC of Train No.2410 having carrying capacity of 1 tonne for the transportation of parcels from HNZM to BSP.
W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 6 of 7
10. With the above directions, the present petition stands disposed of.
KAILASH GAMBHIR, J AUGUST 16, 2011 dc W.P.(C) No.4308/2011 Page 7 of 7