Trans India Logistics vs Union Of India And Ors
2014 Latest Caselaw 3893 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                      Date of decision: 25th August, 2014

+      LPA No.522/2014 & CM.No.13023/2014 & 13026/2014 (for
       condonation of delay in filing and re-filing)

        TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS              ..... Appellant
                     Through: Mr. Sowmen Bhowmik, appellant in
                              person.
                               Versus
       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                            ..... Respondents
                    Through: None.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. This intra court appeal impugns the order dated 13th March, 2014 of

the learned Single Judge of this Court of dismissal of WP(C) 1643/2014

preferred by the appellant. The appeal is accompanied with applications, for

condonation of 5 days delay in filing thereof and of nearly a month in

refiling thereof. However being prima facie not satisfied with the merits of

the appeal, we, without prejudice to the applications for condonation of

delay heard proprietor of the appellant appearing in person at length on

merits of the appeal and reserved order.

2. The appellant was awarded a contract by the respondent Railways for

booking parcels for carriage in Train No. 2626, Kerala Express from New

Delhi to Thiruananthapuram for the period from 19th September, 2007 to 18th

September, 2010. The appellant claims that he was entitled to extension of

the said contract for a further period of two years and duly applied for such

an extension. The respondent Railways however offered to grant the

extension on certain conditions, which according to the appellant the

respondent Railways was not entitled to impose. The appellant accordingly

represented thereagainst and which representation was rejected only on 18th

February, 2014

3. The appellant similarly had another contract, the term whereof also

expired on 19th January, 2011 and which also was similarly not extended.

4. Aggrieved from the aforesaid, WP(C) No. 1643/2014, from disposal

whereof this appeal arises, was filed.

5. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition

finding/observing/holding -

i). that the counsel for the respondent Railways appearing before the

learned Single Judge on advance notice had informed that the

appellant / writ petitioner had deliberately withheld the letter dated

6th December, 2010 of the respondent Railways informing the

appellant / writ petitioner that since he had not accepted the

conditions for extension, his contracts were being not extended

and receipt of which letter the proprietor of the appellant /writ

petitioner present in person before the learned Single Judge had

admitted; the counsel for the appellant / writ petitioner informed

the learned Single Judge that the proprietor of the appellant/writ

petitioner had not informed the counsel also of the said letter dated

6th December, 2010;

ii). it was further the case of the counsel for the respondent Railways

appearing on advance notice before the learned Single Judge that

the appellant / writ petitioner had also suppressed from the petition

the fact that appellant/writ petitioner had accepted the conditions

imposed by the respondent railways for extension of the contract

expiring on 19th January, 2011 and on which acceptance the said

contract had been extended for a period of two years or till

finalization of fresh tender and which term was also accepted by

the appellant / writ petitioner;

iii). the counsel for the respondent railways appearing on advance

notice before the learned Single Judge had further informed that a

fresh contract had already been granted to a third party and the

period whereof also had expired on 21st February, 2014 and the

respondent Railways was taking steps for inviting fresh tender and

the appellant / writ petitioner was not entitled to any relief on this

account also;

iv). that the appellant / writ petitioner having suppressed the said

material facts from the writ petition, was not entitled to any

discretionary relief.

Accordingly the petition was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.

6. The argument of the proprietor of the petitioner is that though

admittedly he had not mentioned the aforesaid facts (in the writ petition)

which were disclosed by the counsel for the respondent Railways but the

same were evident from a perusal of other documents filed by the appellant /

writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge and thus he could not be

accused of concealment or suppression and be held disentitled to the relief

on this ground. He has in this regard taken us through the documents filed

alongwith the writ petition. He has further argued that all others similarly

placed as him and who had also filed petitions in this Court have been

allowed extension.

7. We have gone through the records and considered the matter. The

purport of filing a formal writ petition culling out the material facts therein

and of further super imposing it with a List Of Relevant Dates is to enable

the Courts which are hard pressed for time, to at least at the stage of

admission succinctly know the grievance leading to the petition. Else, all

that a litigant would be required to place and file before the Court would be

the documents and from which the Court would be required to deduce the

case. For this reason, the explanation of the proprietor of the appellant that

the facts, suppression whereof he had been accused to be guilty of, could on

an analysis of the documents be deduced, cannot be accepted. The fact

remains that the appellant/writ petitioner approached the Court with a case

as if his representation against the imposition of unlawful conditions for

extension of contracts had been rejected for the first time on 18th February,

2014 only and which did not turn out to be the true picture inasmuch as the

respondent Railways had immediately on the expiry of the contract and the

failure of the appellant to accept the conditions on which extension was

offered, informed the appellant/writ petitioner that he was not entitled to

extension and awarded the contract to another.

8. Once the matter is looked at in this light, it also transpires that the writ

petition filed in the year 2014 making a grievance of non extension of the

contract which had expired in the year 2010-11 was undoubtedly palpably

barred by time, laches, acquiescence and waiver. If the appellant was

aggrieved from the non grant of extension in the year 2010/2011, it should

have approached the Court immediately and not waited till the year 2014. It

makes no difference that the appellant/writ petitioner during the said time

continued to make representations. It is the settled principle of law law (See

S.S. Rathore Vs. State of M.P. (1989) 4 SCC 582 followed by the Division

Benches of this Court in judgment dated 7th August, 2012 in LPA

No.559/2012 titled Indian Hydraulic Industries (P) Ltd. Vs. NDPL and in

judgment dated 30th January, 2012 in W.P.(C) No.586/2012 titled Rifleman

Ram Bahadur Thapa Vs. UOI and in T.K. Bhardwaj Vs. Director General

of Audit MANU/DE/2127/2011 and Karnataka Power Corp. Ltd. Vs. K.

Thangappan (2006) 4 SCC 322) that repeated representations do not extend

the period of limitation or the time for filing a legal proceedings and merely

because the representation had been rejected just prior to the filing of the

proceeding would not make the proceeding if otherwise barred by time on

account of the request having been rejected prior thereto, within time.

9. We therefore do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same.

We refrain from imposing costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

CHIEF JUSTICE AUGUST 25, 2014 M.