UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS Vs. BRIJESH SHRIVASTAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Seeking exception to an order dated 14.03.2013 passed by the writ court in Writ Petition No.1345/2013, this appeal has been filed under Section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005.

(2.) The Railway Board issued a policy known as "The Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy" for the purpose of granting of lease of Parcel Space available in Brake Vans (SLR's) of Passenger Trains for transportation of goods of any kind from one place to another. Tenders were floated and based on the competitive bidding, respondent herein (original petitioner) secured a lease of four tonnes of Parcel Space in SLR of Train No.15010, Chitrakut Express from Jabalpur to Lucknow and four tonnes of Parcel Space in the SLR of Train No.11477, Shaktipunj Express from Jabalpur to Howrah for three years from 08.02.2010 to 07.02.2013. Agreements were entered into and copies of the agreement have been filed as Annexure P-1 and P-2 respectively with respect to the trains in question. In the agreement entered into, it is an admitted position that there was an extension clause and the extension clause was based on the policy for Extension of Lease, as contained in clause (E) of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy. The extension clause in the policy which form part of the agreement reads as under :

(3.) When the period of contract of the respondent (original petitioner) came to an end and when the respondent submitted an application for extension of the lease, as per the scheme, vide communication dated 17.1.2013, respondent was informed that in view of the change in the policy, as brought into force vide amendment No.11 contained in Railway Board's Freight Marketing Circular No.3 of 2010 dated 9.2.10, deleting clause (E-1), (E-2) and (E-3), as reproduced hereinabove, no extension can be granted and challenging this action the writ petition was filed. The writ court took note of the facts as are narrated hereinabove and found that the amendment brought into force vide circular dated 9.2.2010 thereto would have prospective effect, it could not have retrospective effect and, therefore, holding that the clause cannot take away the right for renewal of contract, as were available to the respondent (original petitioner) under the original agreement, allowed the writ petition and directed for reconsideration of his case. The learned writ court took note of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Vijayalaxmi Rice Mills, New Contractors and Co. and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1976 AIR(SC) 1471 and held that the circular cannot have retrospective effect and allowed the petition by so holding :