Disposed

M/S Sree Steel v. North East Frontier Railway and 7 Ors.

Gauhati HC16 Feb 2024WP(C)/758/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A partnership firm that bought 14 condemned broad-gauge coaches through E-Auction sought extension of the free delivery period after cutting them. The court disposed of the writ petition by directing respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to decide on the petitioner's representations within three weeks, with both parties consenting.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to decide petitioner's representations regarding free delivery period extension within 3 weeks.

M/S Sree Steel Vs North East Frontier… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Gauhati HC (2024)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010029192024

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/758/2024

¶5

M/S SREE STEEL A PARTNERSHIP FIRM REP. BY ITS PARTNER SRI DINESH PRASAD SHAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YRS, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT CHAVIPOOL, SATI JOYMATI ROAD, HOUSE NO-46, GUWAHATI-08, DIST- KAMRUP (M), ASSAM

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

NORTH EAST FRONTIER RAILWAY AND 7 ORS MALIGAON, GUWAHATI. REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, NF RAILWAY , HEADQUARTER, MALIGAON, GUWAHATI-11

¶8

2:THE CONTROLLER OF STORE NF RAILWAY HEADQUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF MATERIAL MANAGER NF RAILWAY HEADQUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM 4:THE DEPUTY CHIEF MATERIAL MANAGER NF RAILWAY HEADQUARTER MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 KAMRUP (M) ASSAM

¶9

Page No.# 2/4

¶10

5:THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER RANGIA DISTT.-KAMRUP ASSAM

¶11

6:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MATERIAL MANAGER RANGIA DISTT- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶12

7:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER RANGIA DIST- KAMRUP ASSAM

¶13

8:THE SENIOR SECTION ENGINEER C AND W IC RPAN NF RAILWAY RANGAPARA NORTH ASSA

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR N PATIRI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I.

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 17.02.2024

¶19

Heard Mr. R. Sarmah, learned counsel for the petitioner, who submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the respondents not taking a decision on the petitioner’s representations, for extending the free delivery period of the coaches purchased by the petitioner through E-Auction Sale.

¶20

The petitioner’s counsel submits that pursuant to the E-Auction Sale dated 22.09.2023, 23.09.2023 and 30.09.2023, the petitioner purchased (14) condemned broad-gauge (BG) coaches of the North East Frontier Railway on 22.09.2023, 23.09.2023 and 30.09.2023. The petitioner was thereafter given sale release orders dated 06.10.2023, 07.10.2023 and 17.10.2023 on payment of the balance sales value for the (14) condemned coaches that he had bought.

¶21

Page No.# 3/4

¶22

However, due to the (14) condemned coaches being located near the main railway station, the petitioner requested the Railway Authority to relocate the coaches to a more suitable place, to enable the petitioner to cut the coaches and take away the cut parts safely, in the interest of safety of the public. However, the petitioner’s request was rejected by the respondents on 03.11.2023.

¶23

The respondents thereafter fixed 06.11.2023 as the date for handing-over the site of the location of the (14) condemned coaches for cutting and delivery, vide letter dated 04.11.2023 issued by the respondents. In the said letter dated 04.11.2023, 10.11.2023 and 11.11.2023 were given as the last dates for the petitioner to take delivery of the cut pieces of the (14) condemned BG coaches.

¶24

The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner prayed for being given an extended period, for delivery of the cut coaches, as they were given only 4/5 days for delivery of the cut coaches, vide letter dated 04.11.2023. He submits that though the petitioner has completed the task of cutting the coaches and the same are ready for delivery by the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to take delivery of the cut pieces of the coaches, as the delivery period has expired. Further, the respondents have not taken a decision on the petitioner’s representations for extending the free delivery period.

¶25

The petitioner’s counsel submits that this writ petition can be disposed of, if a direction is issued to the respondent Nos. 3 and 6 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representations dated 08.11.2023, 14.11.2023 and 08.01.2024, regarding the request for extending the free delivery period within a specific time frame.

¶26

Mr. K. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Railways submits

¶27

Page No.# 4/4

¶28

that he has got no objection to the prayer made by the petitioner’s counsel.

¶29

In view of the consent of the parties, this writ petition is disposed of, with a direction to the respondent Nos. 3 & 6 to take a decision on the petitioner’s representations dated 08.11.2023, 14.11.2023, 16.11.2023 and 08.01.2024, within a period of 3 (three) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶30

JUDGE

¶31

Comparing Assistant

M/S Sree Steel v. North East Frontier Railway and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sree Steel v. North East Frontier Railway and 7 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S No. 10 Kolong Nodi Part-Iv, Min Samabai Samiti Ltd. Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Dinamani Haloi Vs the Union of India and 5 Ors.

Pradip Kumar Das Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Nishi Kanta Bhattacharjee Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ibrahim Khan and Anr. Vs Commissioner of Transport and 4 Ors.

M/S Shyam Sunder Mukesh Kumar Vs North East Frontier Railway and 7 Ors.