IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 12222 of 2008 Between: M/s. Metro Agency, rep. by its Proprietor Sri Subhash Chandra Patra S/o. Shyam Sunder Patra Office at 9-4-106, Regimental Bazar, Secunderabad. ..... PETITIONER AND Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Office of the Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch, Sanchalan Bhavan, Second Floor, Secunderabad. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to pass an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent in calling Tender for leasing of SLR Space by Train No. 2704 Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Hourah. Before the completion of the period of Tender which was awarded in favour of the petitioner in pursuance of the agreement dt. 4.5.2006, as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and contrary to the letter dt. 21.2.2006 and contrary to the lease agreement dt. 4.5.2006, and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MRVENKATARAGHU RAMULU Counsel for the Respondent: MR.T.S.VENKATA RAMANA The Court made the following : O R D E R : This writ petition has been filed by M/s Metro Agency represented by its Proprietor Sri.Subhash Chandra Patra assailing the action of the respondent in issuing tender notification for leasing of SLR Space by Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Howrah. The respondent called for tenders for leasing of SLR Space with a capacity of 4 tons in the first luggage compartment for 7 days in a week by Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express i.e. from Secunderabad to Howrah for a period of three years @ Rs.10,000/- per day in the year 2005. In pursuance of the tender notification, the petitioner had approached the respondent and he became the successful tenderer and ultimately an agreement came to be entered between him and the respondent. His grievance is that the respondent is proceeding with the leasing of luggage compartment during the subsistence of lease in his favour. On 13-6-2008 Standing Counsel for the respondent took notice. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in the agreement the period of lease has been specifically stated as three years and therefore the petitioner is entitled to use the SLR space for a period of three years. He further submits that calling for tenders for leasing of SLR Space by Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Howrah w.e.f. 1.9.2008 intervenes his period of lease and therefore the tender notification impugned in this writ petition is required to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent submits that Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express has two Luggage Compartments and the lease period of both the LCs is to expire by 31.8.2008 and that is the reason in mentioning in the agreement that the lease period expires by 31.8.2008. He further submits that the terms of the agreement provides a mechanism to resolve the disputes and the petitioner being a party to the agreement has to work out his remedies available therein. He drew my attention to Clause 32 of the agreement, which reads as under: “ 32. Any dispute, difference arising or claim arising out of this agreement shall be referred to a sole arbitrator who shall be the General Manager of the South Central Railway or a person nominated by him in his behalf who shall be a Gazetted Railway Officer. The venue of such arbitration will be at Hyderabad. The provision of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (with amendments) will be applicable in arbitration proceedings.” Indisputably the Train No.2704 Falaknuma Express has two Luggage Compartments. The petitioner is the lessee of one Luggage Compartment. In the agreement it is specifically stated that the lease in favour of the petitioner expires by 31.8.2008. For better appreciation, I may refer the terms of the agreement, which read as under: “ Wherein the Railway Administration is willing to lease out the SLR of 4 tonnes by train No.2704 Falaknuma Express from Secunderabad to Howrah on lumpsum payment of Rs.10,001/- (Rupees Ten thousand and one rupee only) per day for seven days a week i.e. Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday for a period of three years (Co-terminus 31.08.2008) where as the licensee has agreed for the said lease.” It is specifically stated in the agreement that the lease expires by 31.8.2008. The tender notification is also for the lease period commences from 1.9.2008. Therefore, there is no substance in the contention of the petitioner that the tender impugned in this writ petition overlapsed his lease period. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. 24th June, 2008. (B.Seshasayana Reddy,J) CC IN THREE DAYS/tnb ASSISTANT REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1.2CCs to 2.2CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{KURR} THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2008 24TH JUNE 2008.