B VENKATASAMI Vs. GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAY CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner prays for the issue of writ of certiorari calling for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the order in letter No. M/w 277/16/xii dated 4. 11. 1997 and qaush the same as illegal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, who is a railway civil engineering contractor for a number of years, was granted permission during 1974 to occupy railway land at Arakkonam Railway Junction measuring about 4000 sq. ft as a licensee on a rental basis. The petitioner states that he had executed an agreement accepting the terms and conditions. The petitioner states that he had signed the readymade and cyclostyled agreement and according to him the copy of the said agreement had not been given to him. However, the petitioner admits that a copy of the agreement has been furnished to him on 19. 11. 1997. The said agreement copy had not been placed before the court, initially. The petitioner states that the agreement is a standard form, which applies to various lease/license to all type of railway lands at various places.

(3.) DR. K. P. Krishna Shetty, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the respondent is arbitrary violative of fundamental rights of the petitioner and it is an illegal action. The learned counsel further contended that the agreement on which his signature had been obtained is an unfair contract, the stipulations contained therein shocks the conscience and it would also shock the conscience of the Court that the bargaining power of the petitioner as against the respondents has to be taken into consideration and that the action taken by the respondents is violative of Article 14 and uncalled for. In his usual way DR. Krishna Shetty raised the constitutional points and relied upon the pronouncements of the Apex Court in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another v. B. N. Ganguly and another, AIR 1986 SC 1571 as well as a recent Full bench pronouncement of this Court reported in Aluminium Industries Ltd. , Madras v. Minerals & Metals Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and others, 1997 (II) CTC 636 and contended that contractual matters of state or instrumentality of state or other authorities, the Court can compel the authorities to remedy breach of contract in exercise of writ jurisdiction in extraordinary cases, where judicial conscience is shaken and the present writ petition for enforcement of the petitioner's right though contractual is maintainable.