K.M.Musthafa vs. Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation LTD.
Original PDF →IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.SURESH KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 10TH KARTHIKA, 1941 WP(C).No.28760 OF 2019(T) PETITIONER: K.M.MUSTHAFA, AGED 41, S/O. MUTHU, 676/1, S/O. MUTHU, PATHAMPADAM, EDATHARA P.O., PALAKAKD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR (SR.) SRI.P.MARTIN JOSE SRI.K.SANEESH KUMAR SRI.P.PRIJITH SRI.MANJUNATH MENON RESPONDENTS: 1 INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS GROUP GENERAL MANAGER, 11TH/12TH FLOOR, B-148, STATESMAN HOUSE, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. 2 REGIONAL MANAGER, INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., 40/8094, SALIH ARCADE, 1ST FLOOR, CONVENT ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682035. R1-2 BY SMT.ASHA CHERIAN, SC, IRCTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 2 W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 ----------------------------------------------- J U D G M E N T The petitioner was awarded a contract for running on board catering service in Ernakulam-Okha Express for a period of five years commencing from 03.06.2015. The licence fee payable by the petitioner for the said contract was Rs.3,27,00,000/-. The petitioner has paid the licence fee payable for the first four years. The licence fee payable in advance during May, 2019 for the last year was Rs.65,40,000/- excluding GST and the petitioner has not remitted the same. Consequently, the arrangement was terminated by the respondents in terms of Ext.P8 order with effect from 07.11.2019. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P8 order.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner only prayed for indulgence of this court to make the payment. It was submitted that this court can impose appropriate conditions to ensure that no loss whatsoever is caused to the respondents in the matter.
The learned Standing Counsel for the
W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 3 respondents submitted that several notices have been issued to the petitioner calling upon him to make the payment due and as the petitioner did not comply with the said notices, the respondents had no other option left, but to terminate the arrangement. It was also submitted by the Standing Counsel that the petitioner has committed defaults in respect of other contracts awarded to him also and therefore, it is not a case where this court should extend indulgence in any manner. It was further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that after the termination of the arrangement, alternative arrangements have already been made for conducting the service for the remaining period of 3 months commencing from 07.11.2019. 4. On a query from the court, after getting instructions, the Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the offer received by the respondents for conducting service for the remaining period is only
W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 4 Rs.10,12,800/-. It was conceded that for the said period, the amount offered by the petitioner is Rs.16,35,000/-.
Having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been satisfactorily rendering service for the first four years of the contract, the fact that the period remaining in terms of the contract is only three months and the fact that the alternative offer received by the respondents for conduct of service is far less than the offer made by the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner to continue the arrangement on condition that the petitioner shall pay 50% of the amounts due for the current year within two weeks and the balance within two weeks thereafter and that out of the 50% which is directed to be paid within the first two weeks, the petitioner shall pay Rs.11,00,000/- on or before 07.11.2019. Ordered accordingly. The respondents are free to give a communication to the petitioner as to the amount payable in terms of this judgment including interest. It is, however, made
W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 5 clear that if the petitioner commits default in remitting the amounts as directed above, the respondents would be free to make the alternative arrangements proposed, without further notice to the petitioner. P.B.SURESH KUMAR, JUDGE. YKB
W.P. (C) No. 28760 of 2019 6 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT P1OF LETTER OF AWARD DATED 21/05/2015. EXHIBIT P2OF THE MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 12TH MAY, 2017 BETWEEN THE PETITIONER AND THE SOUTHERN RAILWAY. EXHIBIT P3OF JUDGMENT DATED 22/08/2017 IN WPC NO.27319/2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. EXHIBIT P4OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 27/06/2019. EXHIBIT P5OF LETTER DATED 06/07/2019. EXHIBIT P6OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 13/08/2019. EXHIBIT P7OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 21/08/2019. EXHIBIT P8OF TERMINATION NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. RESPONDENT'S/S EXHIBITS: NIL //// PA TO JUDGE YKB
Reproduced from the public record of the Kerala High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.