Shamsuddin Nizami V. Union of India and South Eastern Central Railway

WPC/1893/2012

AI Insights

Shamsuddin Nizami entered into a contract with the South Eastern Central Railway on November 11, 2009, for leasing parcel space in a train. The contract was initially for three years with an option to extend for two additional years. As the initial term was ending, Nizami applied for an extension, which was rejected based on a new policy decision that required all contracts to be re-tendered following a revision of rates. Nizami challenged this decision in the High Court of Chhattisgarh, arguing that the rejection was arbitrary. The court dismissed the petition, referencing a similar case and noting that the petitioner had the opportunity to bid under the new rates.

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803345 (HC-CHHATTISGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Dharam Chand Goyal Vs. Union of India and Others
• Laws Referred To: Article 226 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ABHISHEK SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: JITENDRA PALI
• Keywords: Arbitrary Decision; Contract Extension; Policy Decision; Railways; Tender process; Writ petition

Judgement Text

"UIUtl.Ml h-t^**»UStl*l*l; / 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^ ^ PETITIONER: L^^ ^- ^t^:' 5^$^'\" .-••• ^ (C.G.) W.P.C. No... 1^.3..^...... .../2012 Shamsuddin Nizami, S/o Shri Abdul Wahid Nizami, Aged about 32 years, Office at 13, Paras Complex, Opposite State Bank of India, Gurudwara Road, Durg, Thana Mohan Nagar, District Durg (CG) PIN-491001 VERSUS RESPONDENTS: I....19.'-;, 1. Union of India Through its Secretary Mmista-y ofRailways^ p.s .- Me-us I>-<.lhi ^g- Rail Bhavan, New Delhi -110 001 Du-ector Freight Marketing Rail BKavan, New DeUu , f~ 5. M&)d t>^IA.' *i South Eastern Central RaUway Thrdugh the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), f. S. Fa-tQ Present : Shri Jltendra Pali.counsel forthe petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel for the respondents. ORDER (31st October,2012) 1) ShriShamsuddin Nizami (the Petitioner) entered into a cohtract with the South Eastern Central Raihvay (the Railways) on 11.11.2009 for leasing of parcel space in break vans/ parcel vans/ Assistant Guards Cabin in Train No.8201- Durg-Gorakhpur Express. The contract was for a period of threeyears with the clause for extension for two more years, 2) When the period of three years was coming to an end, the Petitioner filed an application for extension of the period of contract. This application was rejected on 29.09.2012. Hence, the present writ petition. 3) We have heard Shri Jltendra Pali, counsel for the Petitioner and Shri Abhishek Sinha, Standing Counsel for the Respondents. ^g^^s^s^^^ii^ 4) The counsel for the Petitioner cites some decisions and submits that: • The order dated 29.09.2012 is Arbitrary and is liable to be quashed; • The Raihways be directed to extend the period of contract for two years. 5) The Petitioner entered into a contract with the Railways on 11.11.2009 with a clause to extend the lease for a period of two yeare. The Petitioner has no right to get this period extended, though he has a limited right to have his application for extension of time considered. 6) The application of the Petitioner has been considered and it has been rejected due to policy decision by which rates were revised. The rates were revised on 31.05.2012 and thereafter the Circular was issued 6n 27.07.2012. Noweveryone is being asked to bid again in light ofthe revised rates. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for the Respondents/ Raihways states that after revision of the rates, the contract of no-one has been renewed and they have been permitted to participate in the fresh tender process. In the writ petition also, there is noallegation that after the policy decision, any renewal has been granted. 8) A Division Bench of our Court has also dismissed a similar Writ Petition (C)No. 155/2012 (Dharam Chand Goyal Vs. Union of India and Others). Inview of this decision, as welt aswhat has been stated above, there is no merit in the writ petition. 9) The counsel for the Petitioner states that he is willing to pay the revised rates. 1 The counsel fbr the petitioner has cited the foltowing decisions: • Govind Impex Private Limited and Others Vs.Appropriate Authority, Income Tax Department (2011) 1 SCC 529; • State of U.P. and Others Vs. Lalji Tandon (Dead) through LRS (2004) 1 SCC 1; • Provash Chandra Dalui and Another Vs. Biswanath Baneq'ee and Another 1989 3upp(1) SCC 487; • MahabirAuto StorBs and Others Vs. Indian Oil Corporation and 0ther3(1990) 3 SCC 752; • Union of India and Others Vs. Tushar Ranj'an Mohanty and Others (•1994) 5 SCC450.—-—^-— l 'v '<9 10) We clarify that in case fresh tenders are called, iJLwill be open to the Petitioner to apply and his tender will be considered in accordance with law. - 11) Wrth the aforesaid observations. the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- / ^HIEFJUSTICE Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu "