18-11-2025

ct no. 10

Sl.53

RP

WPA 924 of 2023

DG Raj Highway Services .

-Versus-

Union of India & Ors..

Mr. Saptarshi Roy,

Ms. Kakali Das Chakraborty

…for the petitioner

Mr.Rudra Jyoti Bhattacharjee,

…for the Respondent no. 1 to 5.

1. Heard the parties through their

respective learned Counsels at length.

2. The petitioner’s main contention is with regard to the setting aside of the

letter of termination dated 05.01.2023.

3. The petitioner being the leaseholder submits that the two Clauses 8.4 and 25.1 as stipulated in the agreement does not apply to the petitioner since the lease operation commenced at SHM on 16.01.2022 and the petitioner successfully loaded the lease VPH till 17.09.2022 after paying due freight charges on 16.09.2022. The petitioner draws attention of the Court to a notice of suspension on and from 21.9.2022 till the redressal of the grievance dated 19.9.2022 was served upon the railway authorities under Clause 8.4 read with Clause 8.8 of the agreement dated 30^th December, 2021. Secondly, the

Clause 25.1 of the agreement can be invoked only from the end of the lease holder and not from the railways authorities. The relevant Clause being Para 25.2 ought to have been invoked by the railways authorities to terminate the contract as a punitive measure which is reproduced below:

“Railway shall have the right to terminate the contract/agreement for any reason whatsoever after serving one month’s notice to the leaseholder. However, Railway shall reserve the right to terminat the contract as a punitive measure without any notic an at any time in case of breach of agreement or serious violation of any of the stipulation of policy/Railway’s rules by the leaseholder or in case of operational exigencies.”

4. The petitioner further submits that the issue involved herein has been well settled by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Anil Bareja vs. Union of India and others (WPA No.21362 of 2021) which was subsequently upheld by the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court on 23.08.2024. The petitioner also submits that in the instant case, no show-cause notice was issued prior to the issuance of the termination letter dated 05.01.2023 and also with regard to the proposed punishment to be inflicted upon to the petitioner for non-compliance of 25.1 and 25.4. The petitioner in such context relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gorkha Security Service vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors. reported in Indian Kanoon whereas it has been observed that the requirement of serving show-cause notice cannot be a dispute in any case. The fundamental purpose behind serving of show-cause notice is to make the noticee understand against him which he has to meet.

5. In the instant case, there was no such notice served to make the petitioner understand the reason behind of being served with the letter of termination.

6. He further submits that the petitioner did not have any opportunity to place his case for consideration. The requirement of the show-cause notice is to rebut the alleged breaches on the defaults if he has committed at all.

7. The respondent submits that there is no procedural gross irregularity and/or illegality committed by the railway authorities in issuing the notices of termination notice. The same has been rightly issued by the authority concerned. The respondent that the letter of termination of the lease contract does not suffer from any kind of infirmity as the same was issued in consonance of Para

8.4 and Para 25.1 of the said agreement.

8. The petitioner submits that in the light of the judgment of this Co-ordinate Bench the Assistant Commercial Manager is not the competent person to issue letter of termination since the railways schedule power of delegation authorizes the Senior Division Commercial Manager to issue such notices. However, the respondent/railway authorities could not produce any such documents to show that the power was delegated upon the senior manager upon the Assistant Commercia