Manglam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd. vs Union Of India & Anr.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3981 Del

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment delivered on: 16.08.2011

         + W.P.(C) No.4309/2011 and C.M.No.8832/2011


Manglam Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd.                ......Petitioner

                  Through: Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate.

                         Vs.

Union of India & Anr.                         ......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 extend the lease of the petitioner in

respect of 4 tonnes parcel space (RSLR) in Train No. 4008

Ex. DLI to MFB w.e.f. 8.4.2011 till 7.4.2013 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 Brake Vans having carrying capacity of 04

tonnes in Train No.4008-R Ex. DLI to MFP for a period of

three years i.e. 08.04.2008 to 07.04.2011 with a clause for

extension of lease for further two years. As the lease was

scheduled to expire on 7.4.2011, the petitioner vide letter

dated 22.2.2011 sought extension of the lease under the

terms and conditions as stipulated in the CPLP as well as the

contract and to the utter surprise of the petitioner, the

respondent refused the said extension and consequently the

petitioner sent a legal notice dated 3.6.2011. As per the

petitioner, the petitioner is entitled to an unconditional

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. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue

involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the

judgment passed by this court in a batch of writ petitions in

the matter of Kishan Freight Forwarders Vs. Union of India,

decided on 2.6.2011. Counsel for the petitioner states that

the petitioner has been denied unconditional extension of

lease for a period of two years in terms of Clause (E) of the

Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the

contract between the parties. Counsel also submits that the

petitioner has always maintained an excellent performance

record and there has not been any complaint against the

petitioner of any contravention or violation of the terms of

the said leasing policy or about the services rendered by the

petitioner during the lease period. Counsel also submits that

the petitioner has no case of over loading or any imposition of

penalty on the petitioner due to violation or breach of any

terms of the contract. Counsel also submits that the

respondent has granted extension to identical situated

contractors on unconditional terms and even to those

contractors against whom there were complaints of

overloading. Counsel also submits that the action of the

respondent denying the said unconditional extension of

lease for a period of two years is arbitrary and illegal. In

support of his arguments counsel for the petitioner has

placed reliance on the judgment of the Patna High Court in

M/s. Scorpion Express Pvt. Ltd Vs. UOI & Ors and the

judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M/s. S.G. Traders &

Anr. Vs. UOI & Ors.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The counsel for the respondents has not disputed

the applicability of the said judgment of Kishan Freight

Forwarders (supra) to the facts of the case of the present

petition. I have gone through the aforesaid judgment and

found that the learned court has comprehensively dealt with

all the objections raised by the respondent and the facts of

the present case being totally identical, therefore I do not

find any reason to decline relief to the petitioner as sought in

the present petition.

6. In the light of the aforesaid position, the

respondents are directed to extend the lease of the petitioner

and grant the extension in the contract for 04 tonnes (RSLR)

in Train No.4008-R Ex. DLI to MFP for a period of two years

w.e.f. 08.04.2011 in terms of Clause (E) of the

Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the

Contract between the parties.

7. With the above directions, the present petition

stands disposed of.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J AUGUST 16, 2011 dc