Aniruddha Bose, J.:— The writ petitioner was awarded contract for lease of one metric tonne space in a parcel van in Train No. 13111, from Kolkata to Delhi. An agreement to that effect was executed on 10th March, 2014. The agreement was to subsist for a period of 3 years.
Subsequently, the said train, which was earlier known as Kolkata-Delhi Lalquila Express stood merged with Train No. 13039/13040 (Howrah Delhi Janata Express) and the said train was to run between Kolkata and Anand Vihar with a new Train Number 13131/13132, which became known as Kolkata Anand Vihar Lalquila Janata Express. Because of this reason, the subsisting leasing contract of the petitioner was terminated with effect from 1st July, 2014. Submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is that on merging of the train, the original contract does not get extinguished. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Clause 17.1 of the lease agreement. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in a similar case, concerning the same train, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has been pleased to pass an interim order in W.P (C) 4735/2014 and CM No. 9433/2014 (Suresh Kumar v. Union of India) on 11 August, 2014. By that order, the operation of the order passed by the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager/Fr. Delhi Division was directed to remain stayed till the next date of hearing. The petitioner in that proceeding was permitted to load and off load goods in the train as an interim measure. A copy of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been made Annexure “P-5” to the writ petition. This matter had been directed to be listed on 24 November, 2014.
I wanted to ascertain from the learned counsel who appeared on behalf of the Railways on 18 September, 2014 and 22nd September, 2014 as to whether the said interim order of the Delhi High Court was still subsisting or not. This query was specifically raised in my order passed on 18 September, 2014. On 22 September, 2014, when the matter was called on, the learned counsel for the Railways could not apprise this Court as regards the present position. Today when the matter is called on, learned counsel for the Railways submitted that no appeal has been preferred against the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He sought to argue that in that case, Railways of a different zone was involved, and the petitioner could not be permitted to carry on loading in an entirely new train.
In such circumstances, I am of the view that following the doctrine of comity of Courts, the impugned order of termination ought not to be given effect to till 17 November, 2014. On merit also, I am prima facie satisfied that Clause 17.1 of the lease agreement would apply in favour of the petitioner.
In such circumstances, there shall be an interim order in the same manner as passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court to the effect that the petitioner ought to be permitted to load and unload goods on and from the train in question bearing no. 13131 from Kolkata to Anand Vihar till 17 November, 2014.
This matter shall be listed on 3rd November, 2014 under the heading ‘urgent motion’. So far as the space for the petitioner is concerned, there shall be no fresh tender for Train No. 13131 during subsistence of the interim order.