IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.6994 OF 2019(GM-RES) BETWEEN M/S R.M.CARGO NO.5, P.S.LANE, 2ND CROSS COTTONPET, BENGALURU – 560 023 REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI.K.S.GANGADHARAIAH (BY SRI.M.NAGAPRASANNA SR.ADV.A/W MS.M.L.SUVARNA, ADV.) AND SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BENGALURU – 560 023.
(BY SRI.N.S.SANJAY GOWDA FOR C/R) …PETITIONER …RESPONDENT THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER/COMMUNICATION DATED 31.01.2019 AND TO DECLARE SUB-CLAUSE(iii) OF CLAUSE 27.4 OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PARCEL LEASING POLICY IN TERMS OF FREIGHT MARKETING CIRCULAR NO.6 OF 2014 DATED 15.04.2014 (UNDER ANNEXURE-F TO THE W.P.) AS ULTRA CIRES ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ACCORDINGLY STRIKE DOWN THE SAME.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.M.Nagaprasanna, learned senior counsel for Mis. M.L.Suvarna, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for the Ceveator/respondent.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In the petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks quashment of the order dated 31.01.2019 by which the contract awarded to the petitioner has been cancelled.
4. Facts giving rise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner is a partnership firm engaged in the business of transportation of parcels in Indian Railways. On 24.07.2017, a tender was invited for leasing of luggage room of SLRD space having capacity of 5 tonnes, SLR space having capacity 4 tonnes and 3.9 tonnes in train No.12864. A Letter of Allotment was issued in favour of petitioner on 09/10.10.2017 and thereafter an agreement was executed between the parties. However, on 31.01.2019, the contract of the petitioner was terminated unilaterally. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent, which is a instrumentality of the State is required to act in a fair rational and reasonable manner. Even in contractual sphere, it is submitted that impugned action of termination of contract in a unilateral manner amounts to a arbitrary in exercise of power in the fact situation of the case. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent on instructions submits that the competent authority has a right to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In the peculiar fact situation of the case, the impugned order dated 31.01.2019 is quashed and set aside. The competent authority of the respondent shall afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order passed today.
7. It is made clear that the aforesaid direction, which provides for an opportunity of hearing before deciding of the contract shall not be treated as precedent as the aforesaid direction has been issued in the peculiar fact situation of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS