Sakhi Rail Parcel Services vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3369 Del

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                             Judgment delivered on: 15.07.2011

              +W.P.(C) No. 4781/2011 & CM No.9697/2011


Sakhi Rail Parcel Services                        ......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. 2190 Ex.

HNZM to JBP w.e.f. 18.9.2010 till 17.9.2012 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 the petitioner was allotted the contract of

leasing of 04 tonnes FSLR space in Train No. 2190 Ex.

HNZM to JBP for an initial period of three years w.e.f.

18.9.2007 to 17.9.2010. As the lease was scheduled to

expire on 17.9.2010, the petitioner vide letter dated

21.5.2010 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 vide its order dated 15.9.2010 granted extension

for a period of two years as stipulated in the policy or till

finalization of fresh tender whichever is earlier. 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. 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. 2190 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 thus 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 another case

cited by the petitioner will not attract 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 admitted at

bar that there was only one instance of violation on its part

when there was excess loading. Counsel for the respondent

has also not disputed that there was a single instance of 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

extension to the petitioner for a period of two years but with

the condition that the same would come to an end even

before the expiry of the said two years 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 the over loading of the

consignment. 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.

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. 16.9.2010 till

17.9.2012 in terms of clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel

Leasing Policy and Clause 18 of the Contract for FSLR

space in Train No. 2190 Ex. HNZM to JBP.

10. With the above directions, the present petition

stands disposed of.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J JULY 15, 2011 mg