Dismissed

M.Renuka v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

Telangana HC20 Jul 2007WP/15219/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court held that in a non-statutory contract where enhancement of fees is permitted by agreement terms, Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 does not apply even if the action is challenged as arbitrary. The petitioner was granted leave to seek remedy via appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

No costs. Leave granted to work out appropriate remedy for grievance regarding fee enhancement in proper forum against Article 226 relief.

M.Renuka Vs The General Manager, South… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2007)

¶1

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI WRIT PETITION NO.15218 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO.15219 OF 2007

¶2

Dated: 2 0 th JULY, 2007. In W.P.No.15218 of 2007

¶3

Between : M. Renuka … Petitioner And 1. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad., And another. … Respondents In W.P.No.15219 of 2007 Between : M. Renuka … Petitioner And 1. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad., And another. … Respondents

¶4

THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.15218 OF 2007 AND WRIT PETITION NO.15219 OF 2007

¶6

COMMON ORDER :

¶7

The petitioner herein was awarded two contracts by the 2^nd respondent for operating the vehicle parking stand at Hafizpet and Hitech City Railway-Stations for a period of 3 years from 15-11-2005 to 14-11-2008. The annual licence fee agreed upon was Rs.8,000/- in respect of Hafizpet Railway Station and Rs. 19,000/- in respect of Hi-tech City Railway Station.

¶8

While so, the 2^nd respondent vide letter dated 30-5-2007 informed the petitioner that the railway administration has taken a decision to revise the annual licence fee to Rs.95,200/and Rs.1,44,100/- respectively w.e.f. 15-5-2007. Accordingly, the petitioner was also called upon to pay the revised licence fee for the period from 15-5-2007 to 14-11-2007 which is coming to Rs.44,332/and Rs.61,623/- respectively to the two railway stations in question on or before 15-6-2007 failing which penal charges at 18% per annum would be levied. Having received the said proceedings, the petitioner made a representation on 14-6-2007 requesting the 2^nd respondent to revise the licence fee by reducing the amount explaining the financial difficulties being faced by her. The 2^nd respondent while rejecting the said request by order dated 6-7-2007 directed the petitioner to pay the balance licence fee immediately failing which the contract would be terminated without further notice. Hence, these two writ petitions seeking a declaration that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal.

¶9

At the outset, it is to be noted that Clause-4 of the agreements executed between the parties specifically empowers the respondents to enhance the licence fee as and when necessary making it clear that such enhanced charges shall be applicable and recoverable from the

¶10

licensee from the date of the notices of the enhancement in writing on the licensee unless the licensee vacates the premises within one month of the said notice. The said clause may be extracted hereunder.

¶11

“4. The Administration reserve their right to enhance the license fee or the cess rates and water charges as and when necessary to do so and such enhanced charges shall be applicable and recoverable from the Licensee/Licensees from the date of the notice of enhancement in writing served on the Licensee/Licensees unless the Licensee/Licensees vacate the premises within one month of the said notice.”

¶12

It is not in dispute that the enhancement of the licence fee which is impugned in these writ petitions is in terms of the above clause under the agreement. Admittedly, the contract is a non-statutory contract and all the rights and liabilities of the parties are regulated by the terms and conditions of the agreement itself.

¶13

The law is well-settled that in a case of a concluded nonstatutory contract voluntarily entered into between the parties the obligations which arise out of such contract cannot be dealt with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a matter of fact, in the case on hand, the respondents cannot be said to have committed any breach of terms and conditions of the contract, but on the other hand the enhancement of the licence fee is in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement.

¶14

Even assuming that the enhancement of licence fee is unreasonably high, it is for the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy before the proper forum for redressal of her grievance, if any, but it is not open to the petitioner to seek any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶15

Accordingly, granting leave and liberty to the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy if so advised, both the Writ Petitions are dismissed. No costs.

¶16

G. ROHINI, J.

¶17

Dt. 20–07-2007 gbs

M.Renuka v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Renuka v. The General Manager, South Central Railway

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

C. Munemma Vs The Joint Collector, Chittoor

Potharaju Subhash Rama Mohan Rao, Vs The Andhra Bank Rep.by its Authorized Officer, Under

M/s.Suryalatha Spinning Mills Ltd., Marchala village Vs Regional Director, Employees State Insurance corporation

Kakani Purnachander Rao Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by secretary

Penumallu Nooka Reddy Vs The Regional Joint Commisisoner,Endowments Department

M/s. J.C.M. Silk Traders, Rep. by its Proprietor Vs State Bank of Hyderabad, Regional Office