Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arjuna Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 11 September, 2014
Author: Aniruddha Bose
Bench: Aniruddha Bose
1
24 11.09.2014 W.P. No. 25334(W) of 2014
NB
Arjuna Singh
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Debrup Bhattacharya
...for the petitioner.
Mr. Mahendra Prasad Gupta
...for the UOI.
In this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a mandatory direction
on the railways for extension of the parcel leasing agreement for a
further period of three months. The agreement was entered into
between the petitioner and the railways in train no. 1283, Howrah-
Ahemedabad Express and the said agreement was initially for a period
of three years, the date of commencement being 7th September, 2011.
There is provision for extension of lease under the Comprehensive
Lease Policy and Clause (E) of the said Policy which stipulates:-
"(E) Extension of Lease:
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 period, the same can be extended only once by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased 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."
In this case the petitioner has completed the three year period and had applied for extension by a further period of three months. 2 Learned Counsel for the railways, however have brought to my notice a decision of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur rejecting the application of the petitioner. The Clause relating to extension, I find from the said Policy, is within the administrative domain of the railways. This Clause appears to have been incorporated to ensure that the lease space does not go vacant for the period between two contracts. Thus there can be no vested legal right to seek enforcement of the lease term. Only situation in which a lessee can approach this Court is in a case where a case of discrimination or mala fide is made out. The petitioner has not made out such case in this proceeding.
Under such circumstances no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition shall stand dismissed. Since the order of rejection has not been communicated to the petitioner, let a copy of the said order be given to the petitioner. In the event the said order is challenged on the ground of any illegality, the petitioner shall have liberty to bring an action afresh challenging the said decision.
There shall however be no order as to costs. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be given to the parties expeditiously, if applied for.
(Aniruddha Bose, J.)