Back
2010 Supreme(All) 1253
[2010(4) ADJ 148 (DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : ASHOK BHUSHAN AND VIRENDRA SINGH, JJ.
M/s. DEEPTIMAN LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17791 of 2010, decided on 12th April, 2010)
Counsel :
Devol Banerjee, Sr. Adv., Ashish Chakravarti and Rahul Agarwal for the Petitioners; Vivek Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, 1950—Article 226—Writ petition—Maintainability of—Territorial jurisdiction of Court—Contract—Wagon Investment Scheme (W.I.S.)—Issued by Railway Board, Government of India, vide circular No. 40 of 2005, dated 20.11.2005—Execution of agreement at Bilaspur between Indian Railway and petitioners providing for various terms and conditions—Challenge is to decision of respondent-3 (Chief Commercial Manager, S.E. Central Railway Bilaspur) not to grant extension in pereiod of supply of wagons—And further for not to accept prayer for changing of loading station—Which challenge cannot fall on non-proving fact of receiving communication at Head office at Allahabad—Decision of respondent-3 informing petitioner 28.1.2010 that petitioner may approach Railway Board was taken at Bilaspur—And that decision became effective as soon as it was taken—Thus, receipt of communication at head office Allahabad cannot be said to be an integral part of cause of action which furnished a cause of action to challenge decision of South East Central Railway, Bilaspur at Allahabad—Held, writ petition for relief as claimed in writ petition, cannot be entertained by Allahabad Court since no part of cause of action has arisen within territorial jursidction of Allahabad High Court to entertain writ petition—Petition dismissed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction—Open for petitioner to approach Railway Board as advised by letter dated 28.1.2010 of respondent-3. [Paras 20, 21 and 22]
(B) Words and Phrases—Words “Cause of Action”. [Para 11]
Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—Heard Sri Devol Banerjee, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Ashish Chakravarti and Sri Rahul Agarwal for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding the writ petition are; the petitioner No. 1 is a registered company under the Companies Act, 1956 registered office of which is at Allahabad. The Government of India, Railway Board issued a scheme, namely, Wagon Investment Scheme (WIS) vide Circular No. 40 of 2005 dated 20th November, 2005 with an object to encourage public private partnership in procurement of wagons to meet with the anticipated incremental freight traffic in the coming years. Customers investing in Railway wagons were to be assured of supply of a guaranteed number of rakes every month based on the number of rakes procured and the turn round of the type of wagons with 10% concession in freight. Certain other benefits were contemplated to the investors. The said circular was issued to different railway zones including South East Central Railway, Bilaspur. The said scheme has been modified from time to time. The petitioners interested in availing of the benefit made two applications to the Chief Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur dated 7th June, 2006 expressing its interest for inducting 4 Box-N Type wagons. The application was approved by the Railway Board vide its letter dated 22nd December, 2006. The said approval was granted in reference to South East Central Railway, Bilaspur’s letter dated 28th September, 2006 by which the petitioners’ application was forwarded for consideration and approval. The loading stations and unloading stations were also approved, which were within the South East Central Railway. An agreement dated 28th May, 2007 was executed at Bilaspur between the Indian Railway and the petitioners providing for various terms and conditions. The petitioners made an application to South East Central Railway, Bilaspur praying for extension of further period of one year for supply of wagons. The said application was allowed and extension of one year beyond 31st December, 2007 was granted by Chief Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway. The petitioners again submitted a request for extension for further period of one year, which was allowed and period was extended up to 21st December, 2009. The petitioners also made a request for changing the loading station. The petitioners again wrote for changing of the loading station to the South East Central Railway. The petitioners again submitted letter dated 11th December, 2009 to the Chief Commercial Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur praying for extending the delivery period of further one year i.e., up to 31st December, 2010. In response to the said letter, a letter dated 28th January, 2010 was received by the petitioners at his head office at Allahabad stating therein that for extension of time limit, the petitioners may approach the Railway Board along with the details of proof of financial commitment for procurement of rakes under the said scheme. In view of the aforesaid background of facts, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for following relief :
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider and decide the representations/reminders submitted by the petitioner No. 1, dated 20.7.2008, 22.7.2008, 11.12.2009 and 7.1.2010, praying for change of loading/unloading stations and for permission to transport iron ore on the basis of the same yardstick as has been applied by the respondents while granting similar permission to other firm by the name of M/s. Rashmi Metallics vide its letter No. 2006/TC(FM)/4/50 dated 5.6.2009;
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the representation/reminder submitted by the petitioner No. 1 dated 11.12
