WP(C) 4517/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE. BD AGARWAL Heard Mr. BD Konwar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Nair, learned St anding counsel, NF Railways. Also perused the pleadings of both the parties. Since the respondents have also submitted their affidavit-in-opp osition and considering the urgent nature of the relief sought for in this writ petition, the same is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The petitioner was the lease holder of VPH in Train No. 15609/15 610 i.e., Awadh Assam Express for a period of three years with effect from 24.7. 2008. The lease was to expire on 23.7.2011. However, just one day prior to the statutory period of lease the respondents have cancelled the lease vide impug ned order dated 22.7.2011 (Annexure -P/19). The main ground for cancelling the l ease is that the writ petitioner was found carrying prohibited items in the parc el van. Mr. Konwar submitted that according to the Railways three cans, allegedly containing Rubber Adhesive Chemicals, were detected and seized in the parcel van at Delhi railway station on 11.2.2011 and that has been made the bas is for cancelling the lease period. According to the learned counsel, as per th e Comprehensive Parcel Lease Policy of the Railway Board dated 28.3.2006, the wr it petitioner was entitled to the extension of the lease period for another two years on payment of the enhanced rate ,i.e. 25% more than the lumpsum leased fre ight rate. The provision of extension of lease has been mentioned in Clause -E. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid Clause of extension of lease was su bsequently withdrawn vide Circular No. 6/10 dated 18.3.2010 but the said Circul ar is prospective and not applicable to the existing lease holders. Learned co unsel for the petitioner also submitted that without establishing the fact of ca rrying red tariff article in parcel van, the respondents have taken unilateral decision that the writ petitioner and his agents were responsible to carry the rubber items in the parcel van and the writ petitioner has contravened the term s and conditions of the contract. According to the learned counsel, no appropria te opportunity was also given to the writ petitioner to dispute the allegation o f transporting red tariff in the van. Per contra, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents submitted that befo re cancelling the lease, the writ petitioner was given due notice on 21.6.2011 a nd despite that no reply was given by the petitioner. Mr. Nair further submitted that the writ petitioner admitted before the authorities about the carrying of prohibited items in the parcel van. This statement has been made on the basis of two letters allegedly written by the writ petitioner before the Senior Division al Commercial Manager, Delhi Division, Northern Railway dated 7.3.2011 and, as s uch, there is no infirmity in cancelling the lease. According to the learned cou nsel, loading of prohibited articles violated the Clauses 8.8 of the terms and c onditions of the agreement. In addition to this submission, Mr. Nair submitted t hat the dispute should have been raised before the arbitrator and on this count also the writ petition is not maintainable. Apparently, the writ petitioner took the VPH on lease on 24.7.2008 and the alle ged offence of carrying Rubber Adhesive Chemical was committed for the first tim e on 1.3.2011. In this way, there isno allegation that the writ petitioner was a habitual violator of the terms and conditions of the lease. Besides this, while giving notice to the writ petitioner, no document of the seizure was furnished him. Not only that when the writ petitioner sought for a copy of the seizure mem o vide letter dated 29.6.2011, the same was not furnished to him. It may be ment ioned herein that the writ petitioner is disputing the genuineness of the letter dated 7.3.2011, allegedly admitting of loading of three cans of rubber adhesive in VPH. According to the learned counsel, this is a fabricated document. In my considered opinion, seizure memo is the prime document to establish the lo ading and carrying of prohibited articles in the VPH. However, this document was not furnished to the writ petitioner. With regard to the extension of the lease, in my opinion in view of the Circular dated 28.3.2011, the amendment of Clause E-1,E-2 and E-3 relating to extension of the lease is not applicable to the writ petitioner. If that will be the lega l position, the writ petitioner may be entitled to extension of the lease, provi ded the allegation of loading and transportation of prohibited articles is not established by the railways. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petitioner is directed to submit his reply t o the notice dated 21.6.2011 to the respondents within a period of four weeks fr om to-day. Thereafter, an appropriate enquiry shall be conducted by the railway authorities giving all the opportunities to the writ petitioner to give his evid ence. Till such enquiry is completed, the petitioner’s lease may be extended as permissible under the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy and in terms of the le ase agreement. In addition to that, the respondents are restrained from opening the tenders, which may be received by them, pursuance to the NIT dated 22.8.2001 ( Annexure-P/22), till a fresh decision about cancellations and extension of le ase to the petitioner is taken. With the aforesaid directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.