Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd and Anr v. Union of India and Anr

ORDER

22.Lt.2011

¶1Respondents had floated a scheme 'Private Freight Terminals' vide cotnmunication of 3I.05.2010 (Annexure P-2) and in pursuance thereto, petitioner had applied for setting up of Greenfield Private Freight Terminal at Murad Nagar, Uttar Pradesh and along with the application had deposited tlre application money of {1 crore. Ihe application of 15.I2.20I0 (Annexure P-4), submitted to the respondents, was dealt with by the SAG Screening Committee of the respondents, who had recomrnended as under:- W.P.(C) No.6458/2011 Page 1 Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. i "6.0 In view of incomplete detail.s regarding land ownership (pqrticularly en compliance or otherwise of provisions of Section 147-A of uP Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950) and infirmities noted.in para 3.0 abovefor the proposed PFT, issue of an EOI noticq te ascertain prospective applicants for PFTs and serious nqture of irregularities alleged against one Director of the applicant company AI/S palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. noted above, Screening Comrnittee recommends as under:- (, No further correspondence be done with the applicant Company rqgarding their eligibility in terms ofpoticy. (i, The application of the Qompany be rejected and no business dealings be done with the company due to allegations of serious irregularities against Railways and vcc'$ advice to impose major penalty charge sheet on one of the Directors of the Company.

(iir) The matter be suitably reported to Railways Board for necessary action and advice to other Railways.,'

¶2Respondents ]hite accepting the aforesaid recommendation had communicated to the petitioner on 13.07.20II that the application of the petitioner has been considered and not found feasible for acceptance.

¶3Against the said rejection letter of 13.07 .2011 (Annexure p-19), petitioner moved a Representation dated 27.07.2011 (Annexure p-20) to the Adviser (FM), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi and learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner subrnits that the said Representation has not been decided till date.

¶4Since the counter affidavit has been filed in this matter, therefore, it would be appropriate to permit the petitioner to make a fresh comprehensive W.P.(C) No.645B/201L Page2 "l ri Representation to meqt the recommendations of the SAG Scrutiny Comrnittee and the stand taken by the respondents in the counter affidavit and to file 4longwith the Representation, the certified copies and the orders of the authorities filecl by the petitioner in the present proceedings, as referred to in the supplementary affidavit of 24.I0.2011, before the Advisor

(FM), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

¶5Learned senior counsel for the petitioner states that the comprehensive Representation would be made before the Adviser (FM), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi within a week.

¶6If it is so done, it is expected that the Adviser (FM), Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi would consider the Representation of the petitioner by affording an effective hearing to the authorized representative of the petitioner and thereafter, would deal with the sarne, while giving reasons and the needful be done within 8 weeks.

¶7With directions as aforesaid, this petition stands disposed of.

¶8. Copy of this order be given dasti to counsel representing both sides. CMNo. 122212011 (u/S 151 CPC) Dismissed as infructuous. NOVEMBER 22.2OII l5 t UNIL GAUR) W.P.(C) No.645B/201L Page 3

a $-e * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + w.P.(c) 64s8l20rr PALOGIX INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD AND ANR. ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Sandeep sethi, Senior Advocate, with I\4r. Prateek Jalan, Mr. Surendra Dube, Ms. Sonia Dube, IVft. S. Chakarborfy, Mr.A. Mishra & Ms. Kanchan Yadav. Advocates \ \ '\ - +_-, - t J VETSUS LTNION OF INDIA AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. A.S. Singh for Mr. R.N. Singh, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR A