Jugnu Jayant vs U.O.I & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3359 Del

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                         Judgment delivered on: 15.07.2011


                     W.P.(C) No. 4779/2011 & CM No.9693/2011

Jugnu Jayant                                 ......Petitioner

                     Through: Mr. Ashish Mohan, 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        No
     in the Digest?


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 the

petitioner in respect of parcel space in Train NO. 2394-R from

NDLS to PNBE w.e.f. 21.6.2011 till 20.6.2013 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 the petitioner was allotted the contract on 22.7.2008

of leasing of 04 tonnes RSLR space in Train No. 2394-R from

NDLS to PNBE for a period of three years w.e.f. 21.6.2008 till

20.6.2011. As the lease was scheduled to expire on 20.6.2011,

the petitioner sought extension of the lease under the terms

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

and to the utter shock of the petitioner, the respondent vide

order dated 15.6.2011 rejected the request of the petitioner

seeking extension of the lease. Feeling aggrieved with the same,

the petitioner has preferred the present petition.

3. Mr. Ashish Mohan, 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. Majumdar, learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner was not granted extension of the

contract in Train No. 2394-R as per Clause E of the

Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and clause 18 of the

Contract as penalty was imposed upon the petitioner on

account of overloading of parcels. Counsel also points out that

the petitioner itself has admitted this fact in para 16 of the

petition that there has been a single instance of slight over

loading to the tune of 245 kg approximately during the entire

lease period of three years. Based on these submissions,

counsel submits that the case of the petitioner is not covered

by the judgment of this court in Kishan Freight Forwarders case

(Supra). Counsel for the respondent also submits that the

case cited by the petitioner will not be attracted to the facts of

the present case as there the contract was in respect of 23

tonnes of V.P. cases and not of parcels of 4 tonnes.

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 overloading of the parcels. 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 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 also admitted this fact that there

was only one instance of violation on his part when there was

excess loading to the tune of 245 kg. approximately. Counsel for

the respondent has also agreed that there was a single instance

of over loading on the part of the petitioner during the entire

period of the lease.

8. It is a settled legal position that while passing the

orders either for rejecting any request or not extending the

contract, the administrative authority is expected to give clear

reasons as through the reasons only one can know as to what

transpired at the end of the authority to reject his case.

Reasoned order by an administrative authority will also ensure

that the decision is not a result of caprice, whim or fancy and is

a just order. The Apex Court in the recent judgment of Kranti

Associates Pvt Ltd. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan

(2010)9SCC496 reiterated the need of having a reasoned order

as it serves a wider principle of justice that justice must not only

be done but it must also appear to be done. It further held that

recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any

possible arbitrary exercise of administrative power and

facilitates the process of judicial review by superior courts.

Hence, the reasoning is the life blood of judicial decision making

and the soul of justice. Manifestly, no such reasons have been

given by the respondent in the impugned order dated 15.6.2011

and in the absence of spelling out any such reasons in the said

impugned order, counsel for the respondent cannot now take a

plea that in fact the extension was not granted in favour of the

petitioner on account of the said violation of over loading the

consignments on the part of the petitioner. The decision for

denying the extension is a vital order and therefore it should

have contained the exact reasons for denying such an extension

instead of merely expressing a regret for not giving extension of

contract. By not mentioning the said reason in the impugned

order, the respondent can be taken to have acquiesced to the

said single violation made by the petitioner in overloading the

consignment. This court in Kishan Freight Forwarders (Supra)

has very comprehensively dealt with all the issues and the only

distinguishable feature pointed out by the counsel for the

respondent is that in the case of the petitioner, there was one

instance of overloading and due to said violation on the part of

the petitioner he was denied the extension. It cannot be lost

sight of the fact that in the other case fixed before this court i.e.

W.P.(C) 4781/2011 the extension was granted in favour of the

petitioner, although conditional till finalization of fresh tender

and admittedly in that case also there was one instance of

overloading and penalty was imposed upon the petitioner. It is,

therefore, quite apparent that the imposition of penalty by the

respondent due to overloading of parcels by the lease holders is

not being viewed seriously by the respondent to deny extension

of the lease period as envisaged under Clause 18 of the said

contract. As per the petitioner, there has been only single

instance of slight overloading of the parcels to the tune of 245

kg during the entire period of 3 years lease which fact has not

been disputed by the counsel for the respondent and therefore

the respondent cannot deny extension to the petitioner for a

single act of violation of excess loading that too when the same

has not been made a ground by the respondent itself for denying

extension of two years lease period and also when the

respondent itself had granted extension to the other writ

petitioner in W.P.(C) 4781/2011 against whom as well a similar

complaint of overloading was there.

9. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the

respondent is directed to extend the lease of the petitioner

from the date of expiry of the original lease till 20.6.2013 in

terms of clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy

and Clause 18 of the Contract of RSLR in train no. 2394 Ex

NDLS to PNBE.

10. With the above directions, the present petition stands

disposed of.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J JULY 15, 2011 mg