In this writ petition regarding lease extension grievances, the High Court dismissed the challenge to Railway Board circulars and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the General Manager for a decision within two weeks.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
WP.1266/2010
1
acd
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 1266 OF 2010
M/s Economic Commercial Service Vs. Union of India & Anr.
..Petitioner.
...Respondents.
Ms. Neeta Masurkar, with Sandeep Wasnik, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2.
CORAM: MOHIT S. SHAH, C.J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 21st JULY, 2010.
P.C.
1] The grievance in this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India is that the petitioner is not given the benefit of paragraph 20.1 of the lease contract which was executed by the respondent-railway in favour of the petitioner on 19.4.2007, under which the extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of three years wherein the same can be extended once, by two more years at a lease rate of 25% more than lumpsum-leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance of the lease holder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.
WP.1266/2010
2
2] Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the three years period mentioned in lease contract was ending in April, 2010, the contract in question was an existing contract which was signed before issuance of Freight Marketing Circular No.3 of 2010 that is prior to 9.2.2010. She,therefore, submits that as per Circular No.6 of 2010 dated 18.3.2010 issued by the railway board, the petitioner is entitled to get two years extension.
3] The view taken by respondent no.2 the Chief Commercial Manager is against the petitioner.
‘
4] The grievance raised by the petitioner about the correctness of the Circular No.6 dated 18.3.2010 issued by the Railway Board to General Manager of Indian Railway can certainly be appreciated by the General Manager of the Western Railway.
5] In the facts and circumstances of the case, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioner shall submit a representation to respondent no.1 within two weeks from today and the General manager-Western Railway-respondent no.1 shall take decision on the representation of the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. Depending upon the decision which may be taken by the General manager-respondent no.1, the Chief Commercial Managerrespondent no.2 will take further action in the matter.
Till the General manager takes decision as directed above, the ad-interim relief granted earlier shall continue.
WP.1266/2010
3
6] The petition is disposed of in terms of the above
directions.
CHIEF JUSTICE
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner in a commercial lease dispute is entitled to an extension under existing circulars without merits adjudication by the court.
Whether the court can dispose of a writ petition on lease grievance by directing representation and remitting decision to the General Manager.
M/s Economic Commercial Service
Union of India
General Manager, Western Railway
Chief Commercial Manager
MOHIT S. SHAH
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
