IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 06 ..12..2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.M.Y.EQBAL, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM WRIT APPEAL NOS. 2470 & 2471 OF 2010 AND M.P.NOS. 1 & 2 OF 2010 (4 NOS.) M/s.Northern Freight Carriers, Represented by its Partner, Mr.Brij Kishore Garg, S/o Hari Chand Garg, No.5/2, Linghi Chetty Street, Chennai – 600 001. …. Appellant in both the appeals. vs. 1. The Chief Traffic Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing, 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. 2. The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3. The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. …. Respondents in both the appeals. Appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the common judgment and order passed in W.P.No.10407 & 10410 of 2010 dated 12.11.2010 on the file of this Court. These Writ petition presented to this court under article 226 of the constitution of India to issue a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus Calling for the records pertaining to the Letter of the 1st Respondent in (1) No.C.206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6317/6318, WP NO.10407/2010 (2) No.C.206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6687-6688, (WP No.10410 of 2010) dated https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel van of Train (1) No.6317/6318, (2) 6687/6688, of the 1st Respondent and quash the same consequently direct the Respondents to extend the periods of lease agreement for Train No.6317/6318 and 6687/6688 for a further period of 2 years as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the Petitioner dated 05.05.2010 respectively. For Appellant ::: Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel for Mr.R.Selvakumar J U D G M E N T The Hon’ble Chief Justice and T.S.Sivagnanam, J These two appeals have been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 12.11.2010 in W.P.Nos.10407 & 10410 of 2010 whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. As a matter of fact, the present appellant, apart from filing the above mentioned writ petitions, filed two more writ petitions being W.P.Nos. 10408 & 10409 of 2010, which also came to be dismissed by the learned single Judge by the impugned common judgment. 2. In W.P.No.10407 of 2010, the appellant-writ petitioner made the following prayer:- “Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No.C.206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6317/6318 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel of Train No.6317/6318 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6317/6318 for a further period of two years as stipulated under clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010.” https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. In W.P.No.10410 of 2010, the prayer made by the appellant- writ petitioner is as under: - ““Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records pertaining to the letter of the 1st respondent in No.C.206/86/40/38/VPH/T.34/6687/6688 dated 29.03.2010 and the incidental Tender Notice No.1/2010-2011 dated 08.04.2010 of leasing of parcel space in parcel vans so far as tender notice pertaining to one parcel of Train No.6687/6688 of the 1st respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to extend the period of lease agreement for Train No.6687/6688 for a further period of two years as stipulated under clause 18.1 of the Agreement dated 28.03.2007 by considering the representation of the petitioner dated 05.05.2010.” 4. It appears that the respondents-Southern Railway entered into an agreement with the appellant for leasing of parcel space in parcel vans in Train Nos.6317/6318 & 6687/6688 for transportation of parcels from Erode to Ludhiana and back. The agreements so entered were for a period of three years. After the expiry of the period of contract, the respondents issued a letter dated 29th March, 2010, extending the period of agreements for three more months or till the finalisation of the tender, whichever is earlier. Thereafter, a tender notice was issued by the respondents on 8th April, 2010 inviting tenders for leasing out parcel space in parcel vans in various trains including the trains that are involved in the writ petitions. The appellant questioned the tender notice and made a claim that the period of agreement is liable to be extended for a further period of two years, as stipulated under Clause 18.1 of the agreement. Simultaneously, the appellant filed other writ petitions challenging the process of the tender and also on different grounds. 5. The writ petitions were opposed by the respondents on the ground inter alia that the petitioner-appellant has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Clause 24.3 of the agreement, and hence the writ petitions are not maintainable. The further stands of the respondents is that the Southern Railway took a police decision not to extend the lease for a further period of two years, as it would cause huge loss to the exchequer. 6. The learned single Judge although held that the writ petitions are maintainable, but, on merits, found that the appellant violated the various provisions of the agreement and allowed overloading for which penalty was imposed and the same was deposited. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The learned single Judge further held that the appellant cannot, as a matter of right, claim extension of lease for a further period of two years. 7. We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, and the perused the impugned judgment, and the materials produced in the typed set. 8. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant mainly contended that although the agreements were for a fixed period of three years, the same was liable to be extended for two more years. Learned senior counsel has drawn our attention to Clause 18.1 of the Agreement and submitted that since there was no violation of the contract, the action of the respondents in floating fresh tender was not justified. Learned senior counsel further submitted that although the extension clause was deleted on 9th February 2010, it was clarified that the said deletion will not in any way affect the existing contract. 9. There is no dispute that the respondents entered into agreements with the appellant for leasing of parcel space in parcel vans having capacity of 25 tons by train Nos. 6317/6318 and 6687/6688 for transportation of parcels from Erode to Ludhiana and back. Clause 18.1 of the Agreement provides for extension clause, which reads as under: - “Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years wherein the same can be extended only once, by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased freight rate subject to satisfactory performance by the leaseholder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract.” 10. It is also useful to refer to Clause 24.3 of the Agreement, which reads as under: - “In the event of any difference of opinion or dispute between the Railway Administration and the Leaseholder as to the respective rights and obligations of the parties hereunder of as to the true intent and meaning of these presents or any articles of conditions thereof. Such difference of opinion shall be referred to the sole arbitrator, who shall be a Gazetted Railway Officer appointed by the General Manager, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Southern Railway, Chennai for the time being whose decision shall be final, conclusive and binding on the parties, the intention of the parties being that every matter in respect of this agreement must be decided by him a sole arbitrator and not taken to a Civil Court. All disputes are subject to the territorial jurisdiction of courts located in Chennai only.” 11. From the aforesaid two clauses, it is evidently clear that the agreements were for a period of three years, which can be extended for a further period of two years, subject to satisfactory performance by the appellant. The learned single Judge found that the appellant violated the terms and conditions of the contract, for which penalty was imposed and the same was deposited by the appellant. 12. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the definite view that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued directing the respondents to extend the lease for a further period of two years. Admittedly, the contract in question is not a statutory contract, rather a commercial contract having an arbitration clause also. Hence, the relief sought for by the appellant is not only hit by the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, but also the writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked having regard to the arbitration clause contained in the agreement. 13. For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any merit in these appeals, and accordingly, they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions are closed. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar pv/- Copy to: 1. The Chief Traffic Manager, Southern Railway, Headquarters Office, Commercial Branch, Freight Marketing, 5th Floor, MMC, Chennai – 600 003. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Park Town, Chennai – 600 003. 3. The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Moore Market Complex, 4th Floor, Southern Railway, Chennai – 600 003. 2 ccs To Mr.R.Selvakumar, Advocate, SR.87040, 87041 Judgment in W.A.Nos. 2470 & 2471/2010 MBS (CO) RH (14.12.10) https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/