High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 1353/2013 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. PC Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. AK Sarkar, learned standing counsel, Railways appearing for the respondents. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the order dated 24th Decem ber, 2012 passed by the ACM/LMG for Divisional Railway Manager (C), Lumding leas ing 2.25 tonne FSLR-I with Train No.15695DN Agartala Express Ex. Lumding to Agar tala on daily basis in favour of the respondent No.5 for a period of 3(three) ye ars on realization of the lease freight, as fixed by the said order per trip sub ject to the conditions stipulated therein. It has been contended by Mr. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioner that since the Railway Board’s circular No.12/2006 stipulates extension of the period of le ase for a further period of 2(two) years, after expiry of the 3(three) years per iod, the petitioner’s application filed for extension of lease by another period of 2(two) years ought to have been considered on its own merit, before issuance of the fresh NIT for granting fresh lease, on expiry of the period of lease gra nted in favour of the petitioner. Drawing the attention of the Court to Clause- (3) of the order of allotment dated 20th October, 2009 passed in favour of the p etitioner as well as the communication dated 27th July, 2012 and also the circul ar No.16/2012, it has also been submitted that it is apparent therefrom that the policy guideline prevailing on the date of making allotment in favour of the pe titioner, i.e. 20th October, 2009, have to be followed, as by the aforesaid circ ular No.16/2012 dated 27th July, 2012, it has been made clear by the Railway Boa rd that in respect of the tender, which have been finalized prior to 1st June, 2 012, the lease holder would be allowed to operate the lease contract as per the policy guideline prevailing at that relevant point of time, i.e. in the instant case as on 20th October, 2009, the same being the date of allotment. The learne d counsel, therefore, submits that the fresh tender process initiated for issuan ce of fresh lease, after expiry of the initial lease period granted in favour of the petitioner and consequent order of allotment in favour of the respondent No .4 is violative of the Railway Board’s circular. Mr. Sarkar, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submits that in Clause (3) of the allotment order dated 20th October, 2009, it has not been s pecified that the Railway Board’s circular No.12/2006 in relation to renew of th e lease would be followed. It has been submitted that what has been specified t herein is that the loading unloading facilities at intermediate stations would b e followed. Drawing attention of this Court to the subsequent Railway Board’s c ircular No.16/2012 dated 27th July, 2012, it has been submitted that even if the earlier Railway Board’s circular No.12/2006 is applicable, since the Railway Bo ard revised its earlier policy decision relating to the extension and has decide d not to extend/renew the existing contract, the petitioner cannot claim that hi s application for extension/renew of the lease has to be considered pursuant to the earlier circular No.12/2006, the said policy decision having not been put to challenge. The learned counsel further submits that in the fresh tender proces s initiated, the petitioner did not participate and the railway authority having regard to the various offers made, decided to grant the lease in favour of the respondent No.5. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. It is an admitted position of fact that the aforesaid lease was granted in favou r of the petitioner for a period of 3(three) years vide order dated 20th October , 2009. The petitioner was intimated about commencement of the booking by issui ng order dated 20th October, 2009 and hence, the period of lease expired on 25th October, 2012. The Railway Authority, thereafter, initiated a fresh process by issuing the tender notice, in which process the petitioner did not participate. The Railway authority having regard to the offers made, passed the order grant ing the lease in favour of the respondent No.5 vide order dated 24th December, 2
Decision
012 for a period of 3(three) years. It appears from the order of allotment made in favour of the petitioner dated 20 th October, 2009 that the Railway Board’s circular No.12/2006 was made applicabl e in respect of loading/ unloading facilities at intermediate stations only. T here is no stipulation in the said order that the said circular relating to rene wal of the lease would be followed. Even in absence of the same, the authority, however, is required to take into consideration the relevant policy decision rel ating to the extension/ renew of the lease, provided such policy decision has no t subsequently been changed. It appears that vide circular No.16/2012 issued on 27th July, 2012 the earlier p olicy decision relating to the extension/renewal of the lease has been reviewed and a decision has been taken not to extend/renew the contract of existing lease holders beyond the contractual period and to initiate the timely action and pro cess for fresh tender before expiry of the term so as to avoid extension of the contract. Clauses-(ii) and (iii) in the said circular dated 27th July, 2012 tho ugh has mentioned about the requirement of following the policy guideline in for ce in respect of the contract granted before 1st June, 2012, the policy decision relating to the extension/renewal of the contract having been changed by the ci rcular dated 27th July, 2012, the earlier policy guideline relating to the exten sion as stipulated in circular No.12/2006 cannot be made applicable. The petiti oner is, therefore, not entitled to be considered for renewal/ extension of a pe riod of lease, which was granted on 20th October, 2009, more so, when the subseq uent policy decision has not been put to challenge. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and hence, th e same is dismissed. No costs.