M/S Pawan Kumar Khanna vs. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager Ferozepur Cantt And Ors.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Pawan Kumar Khanna, was allotted a parking contract from February 5, 2020, to May 4, 2020, for which Rs. 21,07,000/- along with 18% GST was deposited. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and subsequent lockdowns, the petitioner could only operate for approximately 49 days out of the 90-day contract period. The contract was extended, and the petitioner resumed work on March 27, 2021, completing the period until May 7, 2021. The petitioner sought a refund of the license fee for the period of reduced footfall, citing concessions granted to catering contractors. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager sought clarification from the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager regarding the refund policy for the extended period, considering the decline in footfall. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a refund of the advance license fee and interest, and to quash the letter refusing the refund.

Held

The Court held that since the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi, had not taken a decision on the clarification sought by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Northern Railway, Firozpur, regarding the petitioner's claim for a refund, a mandamus should be issued. The Court directed the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager to take an apt decision on the clarification and the petitioner's claim, specifically considering the circumstances where similar relief was granted to catering contractors. The Court expected the authority to decide the matter according to law and rules within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The Court did not decide on the specific amount of refund or interest, leaving it to the authority to determine.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the advance license fee paid for the parking contract period from March 27, 2021, to May 9, 2021, considering the significant drop in footfall due to the COVID-19 pandemic, in light of the concession granted to catering contractors? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the interpretation of contractual terms and administrative policy). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner argued that they are entitled to a refund of the license fee, calculated at 4.59% of the footfall for the period of reduced activity, along with 12% interest. They relied on the principle of parity with concessions granted to catering contractors during the pandemic. They also contended that the clarification sought by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager from the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager remained unanswered, hindering their claim. Respondents' Arguments: The respondents argued that since the petitioner completed the contract period, they are not entitled to a refund based on decreased footfall. They stated that no refund was granted to any contractor in accordance with Railway Board's policy guidelines.