The Acting Chief Justice dismissed this writ appeal, holding that the High Court Single Judge was correct in ruling that a leaseholder with unsatisfactory performance cannot claim extension of lease as a matter of right under Clause 20.1 of the agreement.
The writ appeal was dismissed; the appellate order was upheld.
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.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2012
Dt: 28-09-2012.
Between: AJAY LOGISTICS & PARCEL SERVICE REP. BY ITS PROPRIETOR, AJAY DAMANI FLAT NO.201, L.R.PLAZA, HYDERGUDA, HIMAYATHNAGAR, HYDERABAD .. APPELLANT AND UNION OF INDIA REP. BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAY RAIL NILAYAM, SECUNDERABAD AND OTHERS .. RESPONDENTS
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR
WRIT APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2012
JUDGMENT: (Per THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SRI PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE)
This writ appeal is filed aggrieved by the order of the Hon’ble single Judge dated 29-08-2012 passed in W.P.No.22972 of 2012, wherein the writ petitioner prayed to issue a Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in issuing the Tender Notice No.VP/2012-13 dated 5.7.2012 for leasing of parcel vans for transportation of parcels in Train No.57563/12715 – 12715/57564 i.e. Hyderabad/Nanded – Amritsar –Nanded/Hyderabad five days in a week i.e. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday and Sunday Ex – HYD and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday on round trip basis for a period of three years and extending the lease only for a period of three months instead of two years as per clause 20.0 and 20.1 of the lease agreement dated 7.5.2009 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the policy of the Government of India, Ministry of Railways and consequently direct the respondents to extend the lease for a further period of two years as per Clause 20.0 and transporting 23 tons capacity of transportation of parcels in Train No.57563/12715 – 12716/57564 i.e. Hyderabad/ Nanded – Amritsar – Nanded/Hyderabad on five days in a week i.e. Monday, Tuesday, Thursday, Friday & Sunday Ex – HYB and on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday & Saturday on round trip basis like other leaseholders by considering the representation of the petitioner.
The Hon’ble single Judge, after hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties, dismissed the writ petition holding that when the performance of
the petitioner is unsatisfactory it cannot seek extension of lease as a matter of right. His Lordship also held that in view of the reasons recorded in the proceedings dated 3.4.2012, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for extension of lease and inasmuch as it is stated therein that in order to give equal opportunity to all customers, a policy decision has been taken to float open tenders for lease of parcel vans, his Lordship did not find any merit in the writ petition.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said order of the Hon’ble single Judge, the petitioner has filed this writ appeal.
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record.
It appears from the record that though by efflux of time the lease granted to the appellant/petitioner has expired the same was extended upto 5.8.2012. We have considered the terms and conditions of the agreement for granting lease in the matter in question, in particular, Clause 20.1, for renewal of the lease in question, which reads as under:
“ Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long terms lease of 3 years wherein the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.”
After considering the said clause, we do not find that there is any reason to interfere with the action so taken by the respondents-authorities. The order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge, as it appears to us, is in accordance with the said clause of the terms and conditions and the Hon’ble single Judge has specifically relied on the above clause of the terms and conditions and came to the conclusion.
In view of the above, we do not find that there is any merit in the matter in question, which calls for interference by us in the order so passed by the Hon’ble single Judge.
Accordingly, this writ appeal is dismissed.
( PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, ACJ )
( VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR,
J )
Dt: 28-09-2012.
TNB
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Single Judge erred in concluding that an unsuccessful leaseholder cannot claim extension of lease as a matter of right under the agreement terms.
Ajay Logistics & Parcel Service Rep. by its Proprietor, Ajay Damani
Union of India Rep. by its General Manager South Central Railway
P. Chandra Ghose
Vilas V. Afzulpurkar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
