IMPORTANT POINT
IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the validity of scanning charges imposed by Railways, affirming that petitioners were bound by the terms of their lease agreements.

ORDER :

The issue involved in these writ petitions is intrinsically interconnected and therefore, they are taken up and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. This batch of writ petitions has been filed by the petitioners questioning the action of respondents in insisting them to pay the scanning charges @ Rs.5/- for leased package and @ Rs.10/- for non-leased package for each parcel, stating that the said collection of amount is contrary to the Agreements entered by them for transportation of parcels in the respective trains as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreements and prayed for appropriate reliefs.

3. Writ Petition No.14619 of 2024 is taken up as a leading case to decide the lis in this batch of cases.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the registered lease holder and parcel booking agent and participated in the tenders for transportation of parcels from Secunderabad to Danapur (SC to DNR) by allotting space in SLR-F1 in Train No.12791 and entered into a lease agreement with the respondents on 27.10.2022 for a period of 2 years i.e, from 18.11.2022 to 17.11.2024. According to the petitioner, the contract value for supply of the above parcels is Rs.2,46,61,381.50/-. It is also case of the petitioner that in terms of the conditions of the agreement, he has deposited security deposit of Rs.5,74,875/- and he is entitled to transport the parcels in Train in SLR-F1 as per the space allotted by the Railways in SC-DNR SF Express No.12791 and in terms of the said lease, he is liable to pay an amount of Rs.31,500/- per Round trip and he is performing his contract without any complaint whatsoever since the date of agreement. While-so, the respondent No.1 has issued e-auction tender notification vide auction Catalog No.SC-PSCAN-0424-1 dated 06.04.2024 and auction date is fixed on 22.04.2024 directing to scan every parcel through the Scanning Machines. The respondent- authorities conducted auction and gave lease to the private agencies to install scanning machines in the Railway Stations. It is the case of the petitioner that he was directed to pay extra charges for scanning the parcels, sent by him under the leased trains. It is further case of the petitioner that he was burdened with the extra scanning charges @ Rs.5/- for leased package and @ Rs.10/- for non-leased package for each parcel. It is stated that since the said charges being collected contrary to the terms and conditions of the agreement, the petitioner prayed to exempt from collecting scanning charges. It is further stated that it is the responsibility of the Railways to maintain the scanners installed for the safety and security of the passengers and the lease holders and agents cannot be burdened with scanning charges. It is further case of the petitioner that lease deed does not specify about collection of scanning charges, except mentioning about developmental charges @ 2% on license fee/leasing charges + GST and also paying lease amount with escalation cost for 4th and 5th year of lease period. It is further case of the petitioner that every day there are more than 5000 parcels sent from Secunderabad Railway Station to various destinations and because of scanning there would be delay and parcels will not be delivered on time as the time for loading is very limited in the trains. It is stated that in view of additional scanning charges, the petitioner is suffering with hardship and ultimately, prayed to allow the writ petition.

5. The respondents filed a counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that the respondents have not installed the parcel scanners in the Secunderabad Parcel Office and the petitioner anticipating collection of scanning charges has filed the present writ petition and therefore, the same is misconceived and liable to be dismissed. Relying on Clause 8.1 of the Special Conditions of the Contract, it is stated that the development charge as well as an