TRANS INDIA LOGISTICS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner praying inter alia for quashing of an order dated 18.02.2014 passed by the respondent No.4 informing it that the tenure of the lease period for the two lease contracts granted to it in respect of FSLR II and RSLR in train No.2626 had expired in one case, on 18.09.2010 and in the other case, on 19.01.2011 and therefore, it was not possible to consider its request for extension of the lease contract in terms of clause 18 of the agreement dated 05.03.2008 executed by the parties.

(2.) Mr. Pattjoshi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner states that it was during the currency of the subject lease agreement that the petitioner had addressed a representation dated 15.03.2010 to the respondents seeking extension of the lease. However, the respondents had failed to reply to the said request made by the petitioner till as late as on 28.09.2010, when they had addressed a letter informing him that the competent authority had decided to extend the petitioner's lease but with certain conditions as mentioned in Annexure P-4. It is submitted that as the conditions imposed in the said letter were contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement governing the parties and the directions issued in the Circular No.12/2006, the petitioner had written a letter dated 30.09.2010 to the respondents stating inter alia that he was entitled to extension of the contract in terms of the conditions stipulated in the original agreement. It is submitted by learned counsel that thereafter, a series of representations were made by the petitioner to the respondents on the same lines seeking extension of the contract but the respondents did not give any reply till as recently as on 18.02.2014, when the impugned letter was issued declining the petitioner's request.

(3.) Mr. Jagjit Singh, counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance copy, disputes the aforesaid submissions made by the other side and states on instructions that the petitioner has deliberately withheld a letter dated 06.12.2010 addressed by the respondents to him on the issue of extension of the contract, wherein he was informed that since he had not accepted the conditions that were mentioned in the earlier letter dated 28.09.2010, the competent authority had decided not to extend the contract. He hands over a copy of the letter dated 06.12.2010 issued by the respondents that is taken on record.