IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that termination of a lease contract without proper notice violates principles of natural justice and contractual obligations.

JUDGMENT :

KARDAK ETE, J.

1. Heard Mr. N.N.B. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned CGC appearing for the respondents.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the letter of termination dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Lumding, N.F. Railway, by which, a leasing contract of one 23 tone Parcel Van by train No. 15601/02 (14037/38) Poorvottar Sampark Kanti Express, Silchar-New Delhi-Silchar (Ex. SCL-NDLS-SCL) on round trip basis for 5 (five) years has been terminated and the security deposit of the petitioner forfeited with immediate effect.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that upon the tender process vide tender Notification No. C/03/2018 dated 23.03.2018, the railway authorities accepted the tender offered by the petitioner vide letter of allotment dated 27.06.2018 for leasing of One 23 tone Parcel Van by train No. 15601/02 (14037/38) Poorvottar Sampark Kanti Express, Silchar-New Delhi-Silchar (Ex. SCL-NDLS-SCL) and the same was accepted at Rs. 300701/- per round per VP for a period of 5 (five) years in terms of the arrangement contained therein. Subsequent thereto, a contract agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent railway authorities on 20.12.2018 laying down the terms and conditions between the parties.

4. It is the contention of the petitioner that with the emergence of Covid-19 pandemic, the operation of the train stood suspended w.e.f. 22.03.2020. As a result, the petitioner could not operate the process of leasing parcel space in parcel van in train No. 15601-15602 and therefore, there was no earning of revenue by the petitioner. It is only on 21.07.2021, the petitioner was intimated by the respondent authorities that they had visited to re-start the loading operation of leasing VP by Train No. 15601/15602. Difference has arisen between the petitioner and the respondents’ decision to resume the services of train. Vide letter dated 21.07.2021, the respondent authorities had intimated that train service of train No. 15601/15602 would start from 22.07.2021 and the petitioner was requested to start the leasing operation immediately. In response, the petitioner had apprised the respondent authorities vide its letter 22.07.2021 that due to the prevailing Covide-19 situation and the SOP declared by the Govt. of Assam regarding inter-district lock down and restriction of train hour, it would not be possible to start the operation immediately. On 30.07.2021, the petitioner filed representation before the respondent authorities that it would require at least two months time to resume the operation and if the respondent authorities insisted to start the operation immediately, the petitioner would have no other option to surrender the lease of Train No. 15601/15602.

5. It is contended that vide letter dated 21.12.2021, the respondent authorities had decided that in case the petitioner failed to re-start the leasing service, then they would be bound to act under Para No. 20.4 of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 7.2 of the Contract Agreement. It is further contended that the petitioner made several correspondences to the respondent authorities to consider the difficulties faced by the petitioner to re-start the leasing service in respect of train No. 15601/15602. The request of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities and once again reminded the petitioner that they would take action in the light of Para 20.4 of the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and Clause 7.2 of the contract agreement. In view of such contemplated action from the respondent authorities, the petitioner vide communication dated 24.12.2021 reiterated its earlier decision to surrender the lease in the event if its genuine grievance are not looked into. Despite such request for consideration of the grievance of the petitioner in such circumstances, the respondent authorities have issued impugned terminatio