UOI Vs. AURANGZEB CHOUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS intra court appeal impugns the order dated 28th May, 2012 of the 1. learned Single Judge in CM No.918/2012 in W.P.(C) No.1925/2011 filed by the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner as well as the order dated 17 th August, 2012 of the learned Single Judge of dismissal of Review Petition No.436/2012 filed by the appellants for review of the order dated 28 th May, 2012.

(2.) THE appeal, besides the application for interim stay, was accompanied with an application for condonation of 88 days delay in filing thereof. Notice of the appeal and the applications was issued and vide ex -parte ad - interim order dated 21st January, 2013, the operation of the impugned order was stayed and remains stayed. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned vide order dated 23rd July, 2013. We have heard the counsels for the parties.

(3.) THE writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.1925/2011 was filed by the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner impugning the failure of the appellants Railways to extend the lease of the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner of 4 Tonnes FSLR space in Train No.2497 -I Ex. Hazarat Nizamuddin (HNZM) to Amritsar (ASR). It was the contention of the counsel for the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner that the lease was liable to be extended in terms of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy framed on 28th March, 2006 vide Freight Marketing Circular No.12/2006 issued by the Railway Board. We may record that the lease in favour of the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner was for a period of three years with effect from 10 th October, 2007 till 9th October, 2010 and extension in terms of the Policy aforesaid was being sought for a period of two years. It was further the case in the writ petition that the appellants Railways instead of extending the lease in accordance with the Policy with enhancement in license fee of 25% only, vide letter dated 19th October, 2010 illegally asked the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner to pay rates enhanced by 66%, if desirous to have the lease extended and to which illegal condition, the respondent No.1 / writ petitioner was forced to accede. However, in the writ petition only the following reliefs were claimed: