Delhi High Court
Galav Foods vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 February, 2022
$~31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 14.02.2022
+ W.P.(C) 815/2022 & CM. APPLS. 4132-33/2022
GALAV FOODS. ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondent
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Manish Raghav, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Dr. Sarabjit Sharma and Mr. Kanishka Singh, Advocates.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL)
1. Petitioner impugns letter dated 29.12.2021, whereby the contract
agreement of catering Stall No.3 at Platform No.2/3 in Saharanpur Railway
Station has been terminated alongwith forfeiture of security money and
license fee.
2. As per the petitioner, license was awarded to a proprietorship firm,
of which the father of petitioner, Bheem Singh, was the sole proprietor.
3. It is contended that on 16.08.2016, a master license agreement was
executed with the initial term of the license being five years, which could
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:14.02.2022
Signing Date:14.02.2022 22:41:08 19:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
be renewed for the further period of three years based on satisfactory
performance.
4. It is contended that in normal circumstances, the license terms of
five years would have been completed on 15.08.2021, however, on account
of lockdown and suspension of train service, the stall of the petitioner was
closed from 22.03.2020 to 28.02.2021 due to COVID.
5. It is contended that the family members of the petitioner were
infected with Covid - 19 because of which the father of the petitioner could
not make an application for extension in terms of the license agreement.
6. On 15.05.2021, the father of the petitioner, who was the sole
proprietor, expired on account of COVID-19. Petitioner also claims to
have suffered from COVID-19 and recovered only in June, 2021 and
thereafter approached the respondents for extension of license. However,
said extension was not granted and the subject termination letter was
issued.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that without prejudice,
petitioner is willing to give up his claim for extension of the license but
prays that the impugned letter to the extent that it forfeits the security
deposit and license fee, be set aside and petitioner be permitted to
participate in the fresh tender that has been floated by the respondents.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that since the
petitioner had not made an application as per the license agreement for
extension, respondents had held that the contract agreement stood
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:14.02.2022
Signing Date:14.02.2022 22:41:08 19:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
terminated by lapse of time and since the stall had been operated without
any authority from 16.05.2021 to 28.08.2021, after the demise of the
proprietor, the impugned order was passed.
9. Perusal of the record shows that the master license agreement
stipulated that the tenure of agreement was five years and could be renewed
for a further period of three years on satisfactory performance and payment
of dues.
10. Nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to shows that
there was any complaint with regard to satisfactory performance or any
arrears on the part of the petitioner.
11. No doubt that the petitioner did not make any application for
extension as is stipulated in Clause 3.2, however, the explanation for that
given by learned counsel for the petitioner is that his father, who was the
sole proprietor had expired on account of the COVID-19 and thus no
application seeking extension could be filed.
12. Further, Clause 20.4 of the contract provide that transfer of license to
spouse/legal heir would be allowed in the event of death of original license
for the unexpired period of agreement and Clause 20.5 permits inclusion of
the name of the son/wife/daughter in the license for the unexpired period.
13. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, petitioner who is the
son of the original license could have applied for inclusion of his name or
transfer of license in his name on the demise of his father, in which case he
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:14.02.2022
Signing Date:14.02.2022 22:41:08 19:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
would have been continued the contract for the unexpired period and would
also have been also entitled to seek extension in terms of the contract.
14. Since petitioner is not pressing his relief for extension of the original
contract and is only seeking quashing of the impugned letter to the limited
extent that it forfeits the security deposit and the license fee paid, it is held
that the impugned letter to the limited extent that it forfeits the security
money and the license fee is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed.
15. Respondents shall refund the security deposit and the excess license
fee, if any, to the Petitioner.
16. Further, petitioner would also be entitled to participate in the fresh
tender and submit his bid pursuant to the Notice Inviting Tender for which
the closing date is 15.02.2022 at 1500 hrs.
17. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
FEBRUARY 14, 2022/NA
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digitally Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:14.02.2022
Signing Date:14.02.2022 22:41:08 19:52
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
