Page No.# 1/16 GAHC010042512024 2025:GAU-AS:7720 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WP(C)/1200/2024 M/S GANESH CARGO SERVICES HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT FLAT NO. 110, 1ST FLOOR, ATHELLI SSB PLAZA, HOME NO. 4-2-75-77/80, OLD BHOIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD- 500 003 REPRESENTED BY SHRI BHOOMANI GANESH, PARTNER OF PETITIONER FIRM, S/O LATE BHOOMANI ANJAIAHA. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO. 110. 1ST FLOOR, ATHELLI SSB PLAZA, HOME NO. 4-2-75-77/80, OLD BHOIGUDA, SECUNDERABAD-500 003 VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA AND 4 ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD) RAILWAY BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 2:THE GENERAL MANAGER N.F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781001 3:THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F. RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781001 4:THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-781001 5:THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER LUMDING DIVISION N.F. RAILWAY Page No.# 2/16 LUMDING ASSAM PIN-78244 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR M CHANDA, DR G J SHARMA Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MS. B SARMA BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR ORDER Date : Date: 12.06.2025 None has appeared for the petitioner on call. Heard Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel, representing the respondents. 2. The petitioner, in the present proceedings, has presented a challenge to a notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 and a e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024, whereby e- auction of the parcel space in parcel van Lot No. 12514-12513-VP-1-SCL-SCL-SC-24-1 (Parcel-Parcel Van) to be held on 04.03.2024. 3. The facts requisite for adjudication of the issue involved in the present proceeding, in brief, are noticed herein below: - The respondent No. 5, vide a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 11.08.2021, had invited tenders from valid registered leaseholders in Category ‘A’ of Originating Railway Division/Zone or destination Railway Division/Zone for leasing of 23 tonne Parcel Van (VP), on round trip basis Ex. Guwahati (GHY) – Secunderabad (SC) – Guwahati (GHY) by train no. 02514/13(12514/13) Express Special. The petitioner being a registered leaseholder of the mandated category submitted his bids in pursuance to the said NIT dated 11.08.2021. The bid submitted by the petitioner on being found to be suitable and the rates offered Page No.# 3/16 by the petitioner being the highest, the respondent no. 5 vide Letter dated 05.11.2021, informed the petitioner that the Railway authorities have accepted the bid of the petitioner for leasing of the Parcel Van (VP) in question @ of Rs. 3,16,000/- (Rupees Three Lakh Sixteen Thousand Only) per round trip per VP for a period of 5(five) years to be loaded one day in a week on both direction. On the petitioner depositing the requisite security money and giving his willingness for commencement of loading of the Parcel Van by the train in question, the petitioner deposited 50% of the lump sum lease freight rate and commence loading of the Parcel Van w.e.f. 18.11.2021. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the Railway authorities on 21.05.2022 for the leasing of the said parcel space in Parcel Van in question to the petitioner. As the petitioner was continuing with the operation of the Parcel Van in terms of the agreement executed between him and the Railway authorities, a development had occasioned in the matter. The Railway respondents extended the running of the train from Guwahati (GHY) – Silchar (SCL). The train was now to run as from Silchar (SCL) – Secunderabad (SC) – Silchar (SCL). The said extension having been made, the petitioner was directed by the Railway authorities to operate the Parcel Van allotted to him from Silchar (SCL) station by paying freight charges on pro-rata basis. The petitioner, on examination of the matter, having found that the operation of the Parcel Van for the extended distance i.e. from Guwahati (GHY) – Silchar (SCL) and back, to be not viable, the petitioner vide his communication dated 18.10.2023, submitted its unwillingness to operate the said lease for the extended portion of the running of the train. However, the petitioner contended that he would continue to operate the train for its original route i.e. Guwahati (GHY) – Secunderabad (SC) – Guwahati (GHY) for the remaining period of the contract. The operation for the Parcel Van for the extended portion from Guwahati (GHY) – Silchar (SCL) Page No.# 4/16 being denied by the petitioner and the resultant loss occasioning to the Railway authorities, the respondent no. 5 proceeded to issue 1(one) month notice for termination dated 17.02.2024 to the petitioner herein. In the said notice, it was contended that due to the unwillingness of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) on the extended portion, the Railway was losing revenue for running the Parcel Van (VP) empty from GHY to SCL and back to GHY station. Further, it was projected that attachment/detachment of Parcel Van (VP) was not possible at GHY within the scheduled stoppage time of 15 Page (fifteen) minutes and regular cases of detention of train at GHY station beyond its scheduled time was causing operational constraints and, accordingly, the competent authority had decided to terminate the contract and to issue a fresh auction notice in the matter. Even prior to issuance of the termination notice dated 17.02.2024, a fresh e-auction Notice dated 16.02.2024 was issued by the respondent Railway authorities for leasing of Parcel Van (VP) by Train No. 12514/12513 SCL – SC and back. Being aggrieved with the said one month notice of termination as well as the issuance of e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024; the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding. 4. The petitioner in the writ petition has contended that it was operating the Parcel Van on lease in terms of the agreement dated 25.01.2022 and had not committed any default of the Terms & Conditions laid down therein. It is submitted that on extension of the running of the train from GHY to SCL and the train now originating from SCL, the petitioner having found operation of the Parcel Van on lease from GHY to SCL and back to be not economically viable, the petitioner had denied operation of the same. It is contended that in term of the provisions of Clause-17 of the agreement entered into by the petitioner with the Railway authorities in the eventuality of the extension of the train, the leaseholder is required to be permitted to continue its lease between the pair of stations mentioned in the contract, assuming that the lease is being operated Page No.# 5/16 to/from an intermediate station as the case may be and this arrangement was to continue till the expiry of the contractual period. 5. The petitioner has also relied upon the provisions of sub-clause (3) of the Clause- 17 to submit that in the event the leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations for which the contract has been executed, then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders only for the newly extend portion. The petitioner has contended that the said provisions being already incorporated in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 for a period of 5(five) years, on the extension of the originating station from GHY to SCL, the respondent authorities were required to comply with the provisions so incorporated in the agreement and to issue a fresh tender only in respect of the extended portion. The petitioner has further contended that it not having refused to operate the Parcel Van (VP) between GHY to SC, for which it was so settled, no default on the part of the petitioner in the matter can be said to have so occasioned requiring the respondents to terminate the contract awarded to the petitioner herein. 6. The petitioner has in the writ petition further projected that after issuance of the termination notice dated 17.02.2024, the petitioner vide a communication dated 21.02.2024 had approached the respondent no. 5 with his willingness to pay the difference amount and to extend the lease up to Silchar. Such course of action was contended to have been taken in view of the operational constraints highlighted by the Railway authorities in the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 and also the contention with regard to revenue loss for running the empty Parcel Ex. GHY to SCL. The said offer of the petitioner not having been accepted, the petitioner has approached this Court. 7. With regard to the operation constraints highlighted by the Railway authorities, the petitioner has referred to the provisions existing in the agreement in question, Page No.# 6/16 more particularly, to Clause 8.23 therein, to contend that the Railway authorities had undertaken to provide 3(three) hours free time from the time when the Parcel Van is placed in position for loading or unloading of parcels, in case the leased Parcel Van is placed at a separate terminal at originating or destination station. In the above premises, the petitioner contends that the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 along with the e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024 would mandate interference by this Court. 8. Per contra, Ms. B. Sarma, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for the respondents has contended that the provisions of the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondent Railways provides to the effect that the Railway authorities reserve the right to terminate the contract/agreement for any reason whatsoever after serving one months’ notice to the leaseholder. He submits that the Railway authorities having issued the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 to the petitioner granting one months’ time for termination of the contract and also by disclosing the reasons existing for issuance of such notice, and the same being in consonance with the Terms & Conditions provided in the contract, it is not permissible for the petitioner to assail the said notice. 9. Ms. Sarma has further submitted that after extension of the originating station of the train to Silchar (SCL), the stoppage time of the train at the Guwahati station (GHY) was reduced to 15 (fifteen) minutes. However, it was found that on account of loading of the Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner, the train was required to be detained at the Guwahati station (GHY) for longer duration causing inconvenience to the travelling passengers, resulting in complaints being made, and also operational inconvenience had occurred on account of the train running late. It is also submitted that as the petitioner had refused to operate the Parcel Van (VP) between the extended portion, i.e. GHY to SCL, the Railways had incurred loss of revenue as the Parcel Van (VP) had to be run empty between GHY and SCL and, consequently, respondent Railway Page No.# 7/16 authorities were left with no other alternative but to terminate the contract in question and, accordingly, in terms of the provisions incorporated in the agreement in this connection, the termination notice dated 17.02.2024 came to be so issued. Ms. Sarma has further submitted that the said termination notice is also in tune with the provisions for termination of the lease, as provided under the Comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy of the Railways. Accordingly, he submits that the challenge to the termination notice dated 17.02.2024 would not mandate acceptance from this Court. 10. Ms. Sarma, with regard to the challenge made by the petitioner to the e-auction Notice dated 16.02.2024 and the contentions raised by the petitioner that the same was issued even before completion of one month from the date of issuance of the one month Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024, has submitted that the e-auction notice was issued so as to ensure that the fresh contract is in place and can be made effective after expiry of one month from the date of issuance of the Termination Notice dated 17.02.2024 so that operation of the Parcel Van (VP) is not affected or lapsed. Accordingly, he submits that the present writ petition would not mandate an acceptance and the same would be called upon to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and also have perused the materials available on record. 12. After the LOA dated 05.11.2022 was issued to the petitioner for leasing 23 Ton Parcel Van on round trip basis Ex. GHY – SC – GHY by train No. 12514-12513, the petitioner made the requisite security deposit. Thereafter, an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Railway authorities on 21.05.2022. The relevant Clauses of the said agreement, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present matter, are extracted herein below: - “8.0 General terms and conditions of the scheme: *** *** *** 8.23. Three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position, shall be allowed for loading or unloading of parcels in case the leased Parcel Page No.# 8/16 Vans placed at separate terminal at originating and destination station. 8.24 Any detention caused to the train on account of loading/unloading of parcels on the part of leaseholder will render him liable for payment of demurrage/wharfage charges as applicable to public. In case detention to a train beyond the schedule stoppage on account of loading/unloading of the parcels in the leased parcel van by the leaseholder, leaseholder shall be liable to pay a fine as imposed by the Railway Administration. In case of repeated incidences of detention of train at intermediate station on the part of the leaseholder, the Railway Administration shall have the right to impose higher fine or terminate lease contract. *** *** *** 17.0 Extension of train/increase in frequency of train: 17.1 In case a train in which parcel space has been leased out is extended beyond its initial originating station or beyond its initial destination station, then the leaseholder will be permitted to continue his lease between the pair of stations mentioned in his contract. It will be assumed that the lease is being operated to/from an intermediate station as the case may be. This arrangement will continue till the expiry of the contractual period in the normal course. 17.2 However, if the leaseholder wants to extend his lease to cover the newly extended portion also then the same may be extended and lump sum leased freight charged will be increased on pro-rata basis as per his existing lease charges for the extra distance covered. 17.3 However, in case the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations for which the contract has been executed then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion. 17.4 In case of increase of frequency of weekly/bi-weekly/tri-weekly trains, the current lease will be extended for the same leaseholder in case he is willing for the same at the existing lump sum leased freight rate, for the increased number of trips. 17.5 Whenever there is change in originating or terminating station or short termination of service of a train by Railway Administration and leaseholder of existing contract is not willing to continue the contract, he may be allowed to do so. In such cases, Security Deposit of the leaseholder will be refunded even on less than 60 days notice, provided CCM certifies that Railway is not in a position to run the service after obtaining views of COM. In case trains run via diverted route or not terminating/originating at/from its original terminating/ originating station due to natural calamities like earthquake, floods, breach etc., leaseholder shall be exempted, if he desires so on making an application to CCM, to pay lease freight on days(s) of such disruption provided CCM certifies the operational constraints in consultation with COM.” 13. The petitioner, after the Parcel Van was allotted to him and on execution of the Page No.# 9/16 agreement, was operating the same after making the requisite payment. However, while the petitioner was so operating the Parcel Van allotted to him, the Railway authorities extended the originating station of the train in question from Guwahati (GHY) to Silchar (SCL), and the train now was to run from Silchar (SCL) to Secunderabad (SC) and back to Silchar (SCL). On such extension of the originating point of the said train, the petitioner herein was required by the Railway authorities to operate the leased out Parcel Van also for the extended portion. The petitioner, on examining the viability of operating the said Parcel Van on the extended portion i.e. SCL– GHY – SCL, found the same to be not economically viable and, accordingly refused to operate the said Parcel Van between SCL– GHY – SCL by paying freight charges on pro-rata basis. The petitioner having refused to operate the Parcel Van on the extended portion, i.e. between SCL– GHY – SCL, the respondent No. 5 issued a one months’ notice of termination to the petitioner dated 17.02.2024. The grounds on which the said notice of termination was so issued were stated therein. The said notice of termination, which contains the grounds so taken by the respondent Railway authorities for termination of the contract, being relevant, the same is extracted herein below:- “Office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Lumding. No. C/442/VP-Leasing/LVPH-1/12520-12519 Dated 17.02.2024 To, M/s Ganesh Cargo Services, 4-2-72 to 77 Flat No-110 SSB Plaza Old Bhoguda, Secunderabad, Ganesh Cargo Services@yahoo.com Contact No-9246343488, 970001021 Subject: One Month’s Notice of Termination. Ref: i) This Office letter no. C/442/LMG/VP-Leasing/18-1 dated 05.11.2021. ii) This office letter no. C/442/LMG/VP-Leasing/18-1 dated 17.10.2023. iii) Para no. 33.2 of FM Circular no. 06 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014. iv) Contract Agreement Dated: 25.01.2022 duly signed by you. Vide under ref(ii) above you were requested to submit your willingness to Page No.# 10/16 operate the lease contract of Parcel Van (VP) by Train no. 02514/13(12514/13) Ex. Silchar-Secunderabad-Silchar on the increased rate (on pro-rata basis) as decided by the competent authority but you have denied to operate the same with extended portion vide your letter dated 18.10.2023. Due to your unwillingness to operate the tender with extended portion, Railway is losing revenue for running the Parcel Van (V) as empty form Guwahati to Silchar and back to Guwahati station. In addition, due to operational constraint attachment/detachment of Parcel Van (VP) is not possible at Guwahati station within scheduled stoppage time of 15 (fifteen) minutes. Further, regular cases of detention of train at Guwahati station beyond its scheduled time is reported causing operational constraints. As per Clause-21.1 of the contract agreement dated 25.01.2022 and Para33.2 of FM Circular No. 6 of 2014 dated 15.04.2014, 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 terminate the contract as a punitive measure without any notice and at any time in case of breach of agreement or serious violation of any of the stipulations of policy/railway rules by the leaseholder or in case of operational exigencies. In view of the operational constraints stated above and to avoid loss of revenue for running empty Parcel Van (VP) Ex. Guwahati to Silchar & back to Guwahati, competent authority has therefore decided to terminate the contract and call fresh tender through e-auction. This letter may be treated as one month’s notice of termination. Sd/- (R. K. Mahato) Sr. DCM/LMG” The Railway authorities had also on 16.02.2024 issued an e-auction notice for operation of the leased out Parcel Van (VP) for train No. 12514/12513 Ex. SCL-SC-SCL. 14. Considering the issues arising in the present proceeding, this Court, while issuing notice in the matter vide order dated 01.03.2024, was pleased to stay the e-auction Page No.# 11/16 notice dated 16.02.2024. 15. From the materials brought on record as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the issue arising for consideration by this Court is the validity of the impugned notice of termination dated 17.02.2024. On the conclusion reached by this Court, with regard to the challenge made to the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024, the further challenge made to the e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024 would mandate consideration. 16. A perusal of the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024, extracted herein above, would go to reveal that the same was so issued on two grounds. The first ground was that on account of the unwillingness of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him also for the extended portion of the running of the train, i.e. Guwahati (GHY) to Silchar (SCL) and back to Guwahati (GHY), the Railway authorities were losing revenue as the Parcel Van was required to be run empty between GHY-SCL-GHY. The second ground assigned was that on extension of the running of the train to Silchar (SCL) from Guwahati (GHY), the scheduled stoppage of the train at Guwahati station was reduced to 15 (fifteen) minutes, however, on account of loading/unloading of Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner at Guwahati station (GHY), the train was required to be detained beyond the scheduled stoppage time resulting in operational constraints. 17. The grounds highlighted by the respondent Railways for termination of the agreement, is being examined by this Court. 18. With regard to the first reason assigned for termination of the contract, the reason assigned by the respondents is that due to the petitioner’s unwillingness to operate the Parcel Van for the extended portion of running of the train from Guwahati (GHY) to Silchar (SCL) and back to Guwahati (GHY), the Railways were incurring loss of revenue and, accordingly, the contract awarded to the petitioner was liable to be terminated. The said ground would be required to be examined in the light of the Page No.# 12/16 provisions of Clause-17 incorporated in the agreement dated 25.01.2022 entered into between the petitioner and the respondents. 19. Clause 17.1 of the Contract Agreement in question provides that in case a train in which parcel space has been leased out is extended beyond its initial originating station or beyond its initial destination station, then the leaseholder will be permitted to continue his lease between the pair of stations mentioned in his contract. It further provides that it would be assumed that the lease is being operated to/from an intermediate station as the case may be and this arrangement will continue till the expiry of the contractual period in the normal course. 20. Clause 17.2 of the Contract Agreement provides that if the leaseholder wants to extend his lease to cover the newly extended portion also, then the same may be extended and lump sum leased freight charge will be increased on pro-rata basis as per his existing lease charges for the extra distance covered. 21. Clause 17.3 mandates that in the event the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations, for which the contract has been executed, then the Divisional/Zonal Railway will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion. 22. The provisions of Clause 17 of the contract agreement, more particularly, the provisions of Clause 17.3 having not been amended, the same continues to remain in force. Hence, on the refusal of the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) of the train in question beyond the originating station and terminating station, for which the agreement had been executed, the contract entered into with the petitioner could not have been proposed to be terminated inasmuch as Clause 17.3 of the contract agreement clearly provides that in the event the existing leaseholder is not prepared to extend his lease beyond the starting and terminating stations, for which the contract has been executed, then the competent railway authorities will be at liberty to float fresh tenders for the newly extended portion only. Hence, as provided in Clause Page No.# 13/16 17.3, on the refusal of the petitioner to operate of Parcel Van (VP) between the newly extended portions, the respondent Railway authorities, instead of issuing the impugned one month’s notice of termination, ought to have floated fresh tenders only for the newly extended portion, i.e. Guwahati (GHY) – Silchar (SCL). Accordingly, the issuance of the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 on the ground that the Railways were losing revenue on account of running of the Parcel Van (VP) in question empty between Guwahati (GHY) to Silchar (SCL) and back, would not mandate acceptance by this Court. Accordingly, the said ground for issuance of the impugned notice of termination to the petitioner would mandate interference by this Court. 23. The second ground assigned in the notice of termination pertains to the operational difficulties being faced by the Railway authorities at Guwahati (GHY) on account of detention of the train in question beyond its scheduled stoppage because of the loading/unloading of the leased out Parcel Van (VP) by the petitioner herein. In this connection, it is to be noticed that the agreement entered into with the petitioner, more particularly, Clause 8.23 thereof mandates that the leaseholder, i.e. the petitioner herein, would be provided three hours free time from the time at which the Parcel Van/Vehicle is placed in position for loading or unloading of parcels in the leased out Parcel Van (VP). 24. Further, Clause 8.24 of the agreement mandates that any detention caused to the train on account of loading/unloading of parcels on the part of leaseholder will render him liable for payment of demurrage/wharfage charges as applicable to public. It further mandates that that in the event of detention of the train beyond the scheduled stoppage on account of loading/unloading of the parcels by the leaseholder, the leaseholder shall be liable to pay a fine as imposed by the Railway Administration and, in case of repeated incidences of detention of train at intermediate station on the part of the leaseholder, the Railway Administration shall have the right to impose higher fine or terminate the lease contract. The provisions of Clause 8.24 cannot be read in isolation and the same have to be considered in the light of the provisions of Page No.# 14/16 Clause 8.23. The petitioner having not been provided three hours free time for loading/unloading of the Parcel Van (VP) in terms of Clause 8.23, the respondent railway authorities cannot, on account of the reduction of the scheduled stoppage of the train at Guwahati station (GHY) to 15 (fifteen) minutes on the extension of the running of the train to Silchar (SCL) from Guwahati (GHY), proceed to terminate the contract with the petitioner by invoking the provisions of Clause 8.24, without reckoning the provisions of Clause 8.23. The respondents were required to put in place a suitable mechanism to facilitate the loading/unloading of the leased Parcel Van (VP) allotted to the petitioner and to continue operating the said leased Parcel Van (VP) in terms of the agreement entered into by and between the petitioner and the respondent railways inasmuch as, as observed above, the various clauses of the contract agreement dated 25.01.2022 having not been amended, the same continue to remain in force and, therefore, are binding on the petitioner and also equally binding on the respondents, which the respondent Railway authorities cannot ignore. 25. Further, it is to be noticed that under the agreement executed by the petitioner and the Railway authorities, the Parcel Van continues to be operated between Guwahati (GHY) and Secunderabad (SC), even after the extension of the originating station of the train from GHY to SCL and as such, it is the duty of the Railway authorities to ensure execution of the contract by the petitioner in terms of the provisions of the said agreement. Accordingly, having considered the peculiar facts and circumstances arising in this matter, this Court is of the considered view that the second ground assigned by the Railway authorities in the Notice of Termination dated 17.02.2024 would not also mandate acceptance. 26. At this stage, it is to be noticed that the petitioner has already vide his communication dated 21.02.2024, approached the respondent no. 5, requesting for being permitted to operate the Parcel Van from GHY to SCL and back to GHY by paying the requisite freight charges on pro-rata basis. However, it is seen that the Railway respondents have not considered the said request made by the petitioner and Page No.# 15/16 stood by the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024. 27. In the affidavit filed by the respondents also the contention of the petitioner that he had approached the respondent authorities for cancellation of the NIT as well as the fresh e-auction notice and to permit him to operate the Parcel Van even between GHY and SCL was not dealt with. 28. In view of the above conclusion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 is liable to be interfered with and accordingly, the same stands set aside. 29. As a consequence to the interference with the notice of termination dated 17.02.2024, the e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024 cannot be sustained and the same is also set aside. 30. Having interfered with the impugned notice of termination dated 17.02.2024 as well as the e-auction notice dated 16.02.2024, the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to operate the Parcel Van (VP) allotted to him, in terms of the agreement dated 25.01.2022, between Guwahati station (GHY) and Secunderabad (SC) for the period for which the same was so allotted to him. 31. It is further provided that the respondent authorities shall consider the request made by the petitioner for being permitted to operate the Parcel Van between GHY and SCL and thereafter, issue appropriate orders fixing the pro-rata charges that would now be so required to be paid by the petitioner and also permit him to operate the Parcel Van for the extended distance between GHY to SCL and back. 32. The decision that is now required to be taken by the respondents with regard to the request of the petitioner to be permitted to operate the Parcel Van from GHY to SCL and back be so taken within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 33. Noticing the provisions of the agreement dated 25.01.2022 executed by and Page No.# 16/16 between the petitioner and the respondent Railway authorities, as well as the comprehensive Parcel Leasing Policy of the Railways in place, it is further provided that in the event of the petitioner committing any default with regard to operation of the leased out Parcel Van (VP), the respondent Railway authorities will be at liberty to take such consequential steps in the matter in terms of the agreement dated 25.01.2022. 34. With the above observations and directions, the present writ petition stands disposed of. However, there shall be not order as to costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant