Delhi High Court
Monty vs Union Of India & Ors. on 25 March, 2022
$~45
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 25th March, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 4987/2022
MONTY ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellants: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mr. Mritujya Chaudhary and Ms. Poonam,
Advocates for R-1 to R-4.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
CM APPL. 14821-22/2022 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) 4987/2022&CM APPL. 14820/2022 (interim dir)
1. Petitioner impugns letter dated 11.03.2022 whereby the
respondent has stated that the termination of the contract of the
petitioner affected by order dated 27.10.2021 is correct and holds
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:25.03.2022
Signing Date:28.03.2022 12:19:03 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
good. Further, petitioner has been debarred from participating in the
tender invited by Delhi Division for next two years.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned
termination letter dated 11.03.2022 is bereft of any reasoning and does
not even take into account the response given by the petitioner to the
show cause notice.
3. Learned counsel further submits that earlier a termination letter
dated 27.10.2021 which is also referred to the impugned
communication dated 11.03.2022, was issued. However, the same was
issued on ground different than the ground which was put to the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel submits that in the first show cause notice
dated 19.07.2021, the only ground mentioned was with regard to
alleged non-payment of the licence fee.
5. Learned counsel submits that there is a shortfall in payment of
licence fee on account of the respondent not granting any remission to
the petitioner in terms of the Circular of the Railway Board.
6. He submits that thereafter another show cause notice dated
18.08.2021 was given which was duly responded to on 25.08.2021.
Even, in the said show cause notice, the only ground was with regard
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:25.03.2022
Signing Date:28.03.2022 12:19:03 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
to the alleged non-payment of the licence fee.
7. Learned counsel submits that thereafter the termination letter
dated 27.10.2021 was issued which was on grounds other than the
grounds mentioned in the show cause notice.
8. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner had thereafter filed
an appeal before the DRM, Northern Railway. He submits that even
though the appeal is pending a Revised Show Cause Notice was
issued to the petitioner on 01.02.2022 wherein apart from the issue of
non-payment, there was a brief reference to alleged illegal parking of
buses in the allotted parking-cum-stacking area.
9. Learned counsel submits that petitioner had duly replied to the
said allegations by his reply dated 07.02.2022, however, in the
impugned termination letter dated 11.03.2022, there is no
consideration of the reply given by the petitioner to the said show
cause notice.
10. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing
for respondent/UOI.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent disputes that the appeal has
not been disposed of by the DRM. He submits that the DRM has
already disposed of the appeal.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:25.03.2022
Signing Date:28.03.2022 12:19:03 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
12. With the consent of the parties, petition is taken up for
consideration today.
13. Perusal of the impugned termination letter dated 11.03.2022
shows that the respondents have merely stated that the reply given by
the petitioner is not tenable and devoid of any merits and have
reiterated their earlier order dated 27.10.2021.
14. Perusal of the show cause notice issued prior to the order dated
27.10.2021 shows that the ground on which the said order has been
passed was not put to the petitioner and petitioner has not even been
asked to respond to any of the allegations that form the subject matter
of the termination order.
15. Subject allegations were put to the petitioner for the first time in
the show cause notice dated 01.02.2022 which was replied to by the
petitioner. However, in the impugned communication dated
11.03.2022 there is no consideration of the reply given by the
petitioner.
16. Consequently, the impugned termination letter /order cannot be
sustained.
17. Accordingly, termination letter dated 11.03.2022 and
27.10.2021 are set aside.
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:25.03.2022
Signing Date:28.03.2022 12:19:03 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
18. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.
19. It is, however, open to the respondent to pass a fresh speaking
order in accordance with law on the show cause notices dated
27.09.2021, 18.08.2021 and 01.02.2022 in accordance with law.
20. It is clarified that this Court has neither considered nor
commented upon merits of the contentions of either party. All rights
and contentions of parties are reserved.
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
MARCH 25, 2022
'rs'
Digitally Signed
Signature Not Verified By:JUSTICE SANJEEV
Digital Signed By:KUNAL SACHDEVA
MAGGU Signing Date:25.03.2022
Signing Date:28.03.2022 12:19:03 20:09
This file is digitally signed by PS
to HMJ Sanjeev Sachdeva.
