Allowed

M/s Shiv Shakti Traders v. The East Central Railway and Ors.

Patna HC16 Dec 2013CWJC/11192/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed by a auction bidder seeking delivery orders. The bidder submitted the balance sale amount with interest on the next working day after the stipulated deadline fell on a holiday. The Court held this was not a gross violation justifying refusal and quashed the railway's communication.

What did the court decide?

Writ application allowed; communication (Annexure-5) quashed; Railways directed to issue Delivery Orders forthwith.

M/s Shiv Shakti Traders Vs The East Central Railway and Ors. — Land Acquisition | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11192 of 2013

¶3

====================================================== 1. M/S Shiv Shakti Traders, A Proprietary Concern Having Its Place Of Business A Pandav Nagar, Industrial Area, Near Era Public School, Ghaziabad, U.P. Through Its Authorized Manager, Chandradeep Sharma S/O Late Ram Ratan Sharma, Resident Of Pani Tanki, Dehri- On- Sone, P.S- Dehri, District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The East Central Railway Through Its General Manager, Hajipur, District- Vaishali. 2. The Controller Of Stores (Cos), East Central Railway, Hajipur, DistrictVaishali. 3. The Chief Materail Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur, DistrictVaishali. 4. The Dy. Materail Manager, (Depot), East Central Railway, Samastipur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. D. Sanjay, Sr. Adv. Mr. Akash Chaturvedi, Adv. Mr. Shashwat Agrawal, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Singh, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶4

2 16-12-2013 Short facts are that auction sale was held by the Railways on 15.3.2013. Petitioner was the highest bidder and its offer was accepted. Petitioner deposited initial payment and thereafter applied for extension of time for payment of balance sale value. Time was extended by the Railways upto 23.4.2013 on which date Railway Offices, Post Offices and Banks were closed. Hence, petitioner transferred the remaining sale amount with interest on 24.4.2013 in the account of the Railways. However, Railways refused to issue Delivery Orders, vide Annexure-5. Hence, petitioner has moved this Court.

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.11192 of 2013 (2) dt.16-12-2013

¶6

2/3

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to Section 10 of General Clauses Act, and submits that since last day of extended period fell on a holiday, petitioner was entitled to make payment on the next working day i.e. 24.4.2013, on which day he did transfer the entire amount of sale value with interest in the account of the Railways. However, Railways have not issued Delivery Orders and they communicated to the petitioner that since by 23.4.2013 petitioner had not deposited the amount, it was not entitled for Delivery Orders.

¶8

Counter affidavit has been filed and learned counsel for the Railways submits that since on the request of the petitioner time had been extended, it was required to deposit the amount on or before 23.4.2013 itself and it could not make any excuse that since 23.4.2013 was a holiday, it was entitled to make payment on 24.3.2013. He submits that petitioner knew that 23.4.2013 was a holiday and therefore it could have deposited the amount one day before i.e. 22.4.2013 as on 17.4.2013 itself this extension had been granted upto 23.4.2013 only, as per sale conditions.

¶9

It can be accepted that the petitioner should have been more vigilant and should have deposited the amount before 23.4.2013 since it was known to everybody that 23.4.2013 was a holiday. But if on account of 23.4.2013 being a holiday and the

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.11192 of 2013 (2) dt.16-12-2013

¶11

3/3

¶12

Bank and all the Offices being closed, petitioner transferred the amount in the account of the Railways on 24.4.2013, this cannot be treated such a gross violation of any terms of the sale that refusal by the Railways of Delivery Orders can be justified, more so, when admittedly petitioner has transferred the amount with interest.

¶13

In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed. The communication, as contained in Annexure-5, is quashed and the Railways are directed to issue Delivery Orders to the petitioner of the auction sold articles forthwith.

¶14

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶15

Pradeep/-

M/s Shiv Shakti Traders v. The East Central Railway and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Shiv Shakti Traders v. The East Central Railway and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Nandan Sharma Vs the Life Insurance Corp.of Ind

Hari Narayan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Prasad Ojha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Ganesh Ram Dokania Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.