Back
2024 Supreme(Telangana) 435
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
C.V.BHASKAR REDDY, J.
M/s J.N. Rail Cargo – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and 3others – Respondents
Writ Petition No.28635 of 2022
Decided on : 11-09-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K DURGA PRASAD
For the Respondent: GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR Sr. SC FOR CENTRL GOVT
A written contract's terms are binding, and parties cannot impose additional charges not specified in the agreement.
Headnote:(A) Contract Law – Terms of Agreement – The petitioner challenged the imposition of scanning charges by the respondents, asserting it contradicted their agreement. The court noted that the agreement did not specify such charges, and thus, the respondents lacked authority to impose them. (Paras 2, 6, 10)
(B) Policy Guidelines – The court examined the Railway Board's policy on parcel leasing, highlighting that the absence of relevant clauses in the agreement meant the petitioner was not liable for additional charges. (Paras 5, 6)
Facts of the case: The petitioner, engaged in parcel services, contested the collection of scanning charges by the respondents, which were not included in their leasing agreement. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court: The court ruled that the respondents could not impose additional charges not stipulated in the contract, emphasizing the binding nature of written agreements. (Paras 6, 10)
Issues: The main issues included the validity of additional charges imposed by the respondents and the interpretation of the agreement terms. (Paras 4, 6)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reaffirmed that written contracts bind parties to their terms, and additional charges not specified in the agreement cannot be enforced. (Paras 6, 10)
Result: The writ petition was allowed, directing the respondents not to collect the disputed scanning charges.
ORDER :
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the action of respondents in insisting to pay scanning charges of Rs.10/- per non-leased package and Rs.5/- per leased package, as contrary to the agreement and consequently prayed this Court to direct the respondents not to collect scanning charges for parcels.
2. The case of the petitioner is that it is the company engaged in the business of parcel services and entered into an agreement with the respondents and the contract for leasing has commenced with effect from 05.11.2021 and valid upto 04.11.2026 for a period of five years. The lump sum leased freight payable for leasing of 3.9 tonnes parcel space in the FSLR by train No.12721 Dakshin Express from Hyderabad to Nizamuddin shall be Rs.24,384/- per day (accepted rate) for first three years, Rs.26,822/- per day with 10% escalation on the previous year leased freight from fourth year, Rs.29,504/- per day with 10% escalation on the previous year leased freight for fifth year. Further, 2% development charges shall be payable on the lump sum leased freight. The case of the petitioner is that the respondents are insisting the petitioner to pay Rs.10/- per non-leased package and Rs.5/- per leased package, towards scanning charges. It is stated that the respondents while entering into the agreement have not specified any amounts for collection as scanning charges and in the absence of said condition/covenant in the agreement, the respondents are not entitled to collect the same. It is further case of the petitioner that once the contract is reduced into writing with terms and conditions agreed upon between the parties, the same would be binding on the parties and therefore, the respondents are not having any power or authority to collect the scanning charges on the ground of change of policy. It is further case of the petitioner that contrary to the agreement, when the respondents insisted to pay the scanning charges for the packages, the petitioner has submitted a representation dated 15.06.2022 requesting to withdraw the additional scanning charges imposed on the petitioners for loading and unloading of their parcels. When there was no action, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. This Court granted interim order on 08.07.2022 directing the respondents not to insist for payment of scanning charges for the parcels, contrary to the terms of the agreement. In the meanwhile, the respondents were directed to file counter affidavit but till date, no counter affidavit has been filed.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying upon the agreement entered between the petitioner and the respondents has submitted that except collecting 10% escalation charges and 2% development charges payable on the lumpsum leased freight, the respondents are not having any power or authority to collect the scanning charges. It is further stated that Clause 3.2 of the agreement states that there shall be no escalation of lumpsum leased freight during the contractual period on account of Budgetary or any other increase in the tariff rates and therefore, the respondents are not having any power to increase the Tariff rates during the operation period of the contract and ultimately prayed to allow the writ petition as prayed for.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, has issued modified policy guidelines on ‘Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy’ vide Circular No.06 of 2014 No.2013/TC(FM)/10/02 dated 15.04.2014 specifying the general guidelines for leasing of parcel space. It is further stated that as per Clause 11.1 of the said policy guidelines, the leaseholder will have to pay ‘Development Charge’, or any other charges levied by the Railway Administration on the freight over and above the lumpsum leased freight. It is further submitted that since the contract is entered subsequent to the policy guidelines, the G
