Delhi High Court
M/S Trans India Logistics vs Union Of India & Ors. on 13 March, 2014
30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
W.P.(C) 1643/2014 & CM APPL.3425-3426/2014
Decided on : 13.03.2014
IN THE MATTER OF
M/S TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Swetank Shantanu, Mr. Pratap Shankar and
Mr. S.K. Dubey, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate with
Ms. Sampa Sengupta Ray and Mr. Tarak Khanna,
Advocates
CORAM
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
HIMA KOHLI, J. (ORAL)
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia
for quashing of an order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.4
informing it that the tenure of the lease period for the two lease contracts
granted to it in respect of FSLR II and RSLR in train No.2626 had expired in
one case, on 18.09.2010 and in the other case, on 19.01.2011 and
therefore, it was not possible to consider its request for extension of the
lease contract in terms of clause 18 of the agreement dated 05.03.2008
executed by the parties.
2. Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner
states that it was during the currency of the subject lease agreement that
the petitioner had addressed a representation dated 15.03.2010 to the
respondents seeking extension of the lease. However, the respondents had
failed to reply to the said request made by the petitioner till as late as on
28.09.2010, when they had addressed a letter informing him that the
competent authority had decided to extend the petitioner's lease but with
certain conditions as mentioned in Annexure P-4. It is submitted that as the
conditions imposed in the said letter were contrary to the terms and
conditions of the agreement governing the parties and the directions issued
in the Circular No.12/2006, the petitioner had written a letter dated
30.09.2010 to the respondents stating inter alia that he was entitled to
extension of the contract in terms of the conditions stipulated in the original
agreement. It is submitted by learned counsel that thereafter, a series of
representations were made by the petitioner to the respondents on the same
lines seeking extension of the contract but the respondents did not give any
reply till as recently as on 18.02.2014, when the impugned letter was issued
declining the petitioner's request.
3. Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance
copy, disputes the aforesaid submissions made by the other side and states
on instructions that the petitioner has deliberately withheld a letter dated
06.12.2010 addressed by the respondents to him on the issue of extension
of the contract, wherein he was informed that since he had not accepted the
conditions that were mentioned in the earlier letter dated 28.09.2010, the
competent authority had decided not to extend the contract. He hands over
a copy of the letter dated 06.12.2010 issued by the respondents that is
taken on record.
4. Mr. Sowmen Bhowmik, the proprietor of the petitioner is present in
Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has been asked to obtain
instructions from his client as to why the aforesaid letter has not been
placed on record. The briefing counsel confirms the fact that his client had
duly received the aforesaid letter dated 06.12.2010 but states that he had
not revealed the same to him at the time of drafting the present petition.
5. Further, counsel for the respondents states that the petitioner has
failed to point out that out of the two lease agreements executed with the
petitioner, the lease in respect of RSLR in train No.2626 was duly extended
by the respondents for a period of two years as the petitioner had duly
complied with the conditions imposed by the respondents on him in its
letter. In support of the said submission, learned counsel hands over a copy
of the letter dated 20.01.2011 addressed by the respondents to the
petitioner granting him extension of lease of 04 tons RSLR space in train
No.2626 for a period of two years or till finalization of fresh tender, which
was duly accepted by him. Curiously, even the aforesaid facts have not been
mentioned in the writ petition. Though the petitioner had accepted similar
terms and conditions imposed by the respondents in the letter dated
20.01.2011, there is not a whisper in the writ petition as to the fact that the
petitioner had accepted the said extension on the conditions imposed by the
respondents, except for making a passing reference to the letter dated
21.01.2011 in sub para (V)(k) of the writ petition.
6. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondents states that upon the expiry
of the lease in respect of the subject train on 22.02.2011, a fresh contract
was granted to a third party that was valid till 21.02.2014, and during the
currency of the said contract, steps have been initiated by the respondents
to float a fresh tender for inviting bids for executing a fresh lease in respect
of the subject train and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief
in the present petition.
7. It is a settled law that when a party approaches the High Court and
seeks the invocation of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, it must place on record all the relevant facts before the Court
without any reservation. In exercising its discretionary powers and
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court not only acts as a court of law, but also as a court of equity.
Therefore, in case there is a deliberate concealment or suppression of
material facts on the part of the petitioner or it transpires that the facts have
been so twisted and placed before the Court, so as to amount to
concealment, the writ court is entitled to refuse to entertain the petition and
dismiss it without entering into the merits of the matter [Refer: Prestige
Lights Ltd. vs. State Bank of India(2007) 8 SCC 449].
8. In the case at hand, on a perusal of the petition including the list of
dates and events and annexures, this Court finds that the petitioner has
remained completely silent about the letter dated 6.12.2010 issued by the
respondents rejecting the extension of the subject contract that was duly
received by him. Moreover, the petitioner has concealed the fact that he had
accepted the extension for the contract of leasing of 4 tonnes RSLR space in
train no. 2626 on the conditions imposed by the respondents vide letter
dated 21.01.2011 which were on the same lines as contained in the letter
dated 06.12.2010.
9. The aforesaid conduct of the petitioner amounts to deliberate
concealment of material facts from the Court, which itself is considered a
sufficient ground for the Court to dismiss the present petition. The petitioner
cannot expect equity to flow in his favour when he elects to approach the
Court with unclean hands and states half truths and makes selective
disclosures.
10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, while refraining from
imposing substantial costs on the petitioner for intentionally failing to reveal
all the necessary and material facts to the Court and deliberately failing to
place on record the relevant documents, the present petition is dismissed
with costs of `10,000/- to be deposited with the Delhi High Court Mediation
and Conciliation Centre within two weeks from today and proof of deposit,
placed on record within the same time. In case the costs are not deposited
and proof of payment not placed on record, then the Registry shall place the
matter before the court.
11. The petition is dismissed, alongwith the pending applications.
(HIMA KOHLI)
MARCH 13, 2014 JUDGE
rkb
