JUDGEMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Dr. B. N. Gogoi and Mr. A. Barkataky, leaned Standing counsel, Railways, as well as Mr. S. R. Prasad, Dy. Chief Manager (Material), N.F. Railways. 2. The case projected by the petitioners is that the Deputy Chief Manager (Material), N.F. Railway, Pandu, conducted e-auctions. The petitioner in WP(C) 5265/2015 participated in the e-auction at Depot – GSD, Pandu, on 30.10.2014 for sale of RAIL 75 R US EQUAL TO 40 NOS EQUAL TO 424.35 RM EQUAL TO 15.756 MT under Lot No. HJO-SCRAP-14-06-2014. The petitioner in WP(C) 5272/2015 participated in e-auction at Depot – GSD, Pandu, on 30.10.2014 for selling RAIL 75 R US EQUAL TO 357.00 RM EQUAL TO 13.325 MT under Lot No. HJO-SCRAP-18-06-2014. The petitioner in WP(C) 6509/2016 participated in e-auction at Depot – GSD, Pandu, on 21.10.2014 for sale of RAIL 52 Kg. US EQUAL TO 32 NOS EQUAL TO 388.99 RM EQUAL TO 20.185 MT under Lot No. SSE-PWAY-HJI-JMK 10-14. The petitioner in WP(C) 4873/2016 participated in e-auction at Depot – GSD, Pandu, on 12.01.2016 for sale of RAIL 75 R US EQUAL TO 26.649 MT under Lot No. AF-PW-CON-SCL-25-15-BPB. 3. It is the common case of the petitioners that their respective bids, being highest bids in respect of the respective e-auction, were accepted and that Balance Sale Value (BSV) was to be deposited within twenty days of issuance of Bid-Sheet wherein all details of the e-auction is given. In respect of all the petitioners, after the requisite payments were made and, in some cases with late fine for delayed payment, Sale Release Orders (SRO) were issued. 4. Further common projection of the petitioners is that free delivery period is up to 50 days from the date of acceptance of bid and after 50 days, respondent authorities charge ground rent for effecting delivery. 5. In respect of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 5265/2015, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 29.11.2014 stipulating the date of taking delivery on or before 18.12.2014. On the basis of an application dated 02.12.2014 filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities fixed 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014 for delivery of auctioned materials. 5. In respect of the writ petitioner in WP(C) 5265/2015, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 29.11.2014 stipulating the date of taking delivery on or before 18.12.2014. On the basis of an application dated 02.12.2014 filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities fixed 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014 for delivery of auctioned materials. But the railway authorities could not effect delivery of the materials on 16.12.2014 and 17.12.2014 due to holding of special market for Christmas and weekly local market near Harangajao Railway Station as a result of which the trucks of the petitioner were not allowed to enter into the delivery area by the local people. A joint memorandum was prepared in this connection on 17.12.2014 recording that delivery was cancelled because of the aforesaid reasons. On 18.12.2014, the petitioner made an application to the Deputy Chief Material Manager, N.F. Railway, Pandu, Guwahati, with a prayer for extension of time for delivery of the purchased materials, preferably up to 15.02.2015, without charging any ground rent. Delivery of materials was not given to the petitioner on this or that ground and, after expiry of 50 days from the date of acceptance of the bid, the respondent authorities started charging ground rent from the petitioner. 6. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that extension of delivery period without ground rent is not permissible and that it was the failure of the petitioner to take delivery of the materials within the stipulated period. The petitioner was repeatedly advised to take delivery of the materials by paying ground rent. The respondents have relied on the terms and conditions of General Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials Through e-auction. Though it is stated in the affidavit that the same is enclosed, in fact, the same is not enclosed. 7. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C) 5272/2015, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 29.11.2014 fixing the date of taking delivery on or before 19.12.2014. On the basis of an application, the respondent authorities fixed 18.12.2014 and 19.12.2014 for delivery of the auctioned materials. On 18.12.2014 the petitioner took delivery of 50% of the materials. 7. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C) 5272/2015, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 29.11.2014 fixing the date of taking delivery on or before 19.12.2014. On the basis of an application, the respondent authorities fixed 18.12.2014 and 19.12.2014 for delivery of the auctioned materials. On 18.12.2014 the petitioner took delivery of 50% of the materials. But on 19.12.2014, due to disturbances created by the local public preventing the lorries of the petitioner from entering into the delivery site, delivery could not be taken by the petitioner because of the tense situation and, accordingly, a memorandum was prepared, wherein it was recorded that the delivery was cancelled and on that day itself, the petitioner prayed for fixation of a suitable date for causing delivery without charging any ground rent. However, no further action is taken by the authorities. In the affidavit-in-opposition, it is stated that extension of delivery period without ground rent is not permissible and that it was the failure of the petitioner to take delivery of the materials within the stipulated period. The petitioner was repeatedly advised to take delivery of the materials by paying ground rent. The respondents have relied on the terms and conditions of the General Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials through e-auction. 8. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C) 6509/2015, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 11.11.2014 fixing the date of taking delivery on or before 09.12.2014. On the basis of an application filed by the petitioner, the respondent authorities fixed 01.12.2014 and 03.12.2014 for delivery of auctioned materials. However, delivery of materials could not be caused within the time fixed as the approval of the competent authority was received on 02.12.2014 and there was no time to inform all concerned and, accordingly, on the basis of an application filed by the petitioner with a prayer for re-fixing the date of delivery, preferably within 09.12.2014, the date of delivery was again fixed on 08.12.2014 to 09.12.2014. Annexure-6 of the writ petition demonstrates that petitioner could not lift the materials due to delay in getting approval for fixing the date. The communication from the competent authority reached the delivery authority only on 08.12.2014. Accordingly, recommendation was made by the local authority that extension may be granted without ground rent up to 25.03.2015. In Annexure-6, there is a note indicating that BSV was not deposited within twenty days of sale. The communication from the competent authority reached the delivery authority only on 08.12.2014. Accordingly, recommendation was made by the local authority that extension may be granted without ground rent up to 25.03.2015. In Annexure-6, there is a note indicating that BSV was not deposited within twenty days of sale. There is another endorsement to return the case for necessary action to the Deputy CMM/PMO as per extant policy and procedure. Subsequently, a letter dated 02.06.2015 was issued by the respondent No. 3 extending the date of delivery from 09.12.2014 to 30.06.2015 with ground rent for 204 days. No affidavit was filed by the respondent authorities. 9. In respect of the petitioner in WP(C) No. 4873/2016, the respondent authorities issued SRO on 10.02.2016 fixing delivery on or before 01.03.2016. The petitioner filed application before the competent respondent authority to fix the delivery date on 26.02.2016 and 27.02.2016. The petitioner was informed about the fixing of delivery date on 29.02.2016. However, the aforesaid date was cancelled due to CRS Inspection and Mega Block in ARCC-JEBM section, which is a totally administrative reason. The petitioner made application on 08.03.2016 praying for fixing a fresh date of delivery, which was forwarded to the competent authority by letter dated 25.03.2016 recommending extension of delivery period. Thereafter, an order dated 16.04.2016 was issued granting extension of delivery period from 01.03.2016 to 30.04.2016 with ground rent. No affidavit was filed by the respondent authorities. 10. From the materials on record, it is manifest that the instant cases are cases where the petitioners had failed to take delivery on the dates fixed not because of their laches, negligence and/or inaction. The dates of delivery had been cancelled because of the reasons which had already been noted hereinabove. If the dates of delivery had been cancelled, it cannot be countenanced that whenever a fresh date of delivery is to be fixed beyond 50 (fifty) days, the petitioners would be liable to pay ground rent. 11. Reliance was placed by the learned Standing counsel upon Clause-15.2 of the General Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials through e-auction. If the dates of delivery had been cancelled, it cannot be countenanced that whenever a fresh date of delivery is to be fixed beyond 50 (fifty) days, the petitioners would be liable to pay ground rent. 11. Reliance was placed by the learned Standing counsel upon Clause-15.2 of the General Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials through e-auction. The same reads as follows:- “15.2 In the event of sale being cancelled and/or delivery of material withheld, in whole or in part, as aforesaid, or it being found impossible to complete delivery after payment has been made, a refund of value of the undelivered goods will be made to the purchaser who will have no claim for further compensation from the Government.” 12. A plain reading of the aforesaid Clause goes to show that the same is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Reliance was also placed upon Clause-11.6.5 of the Special Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials Through e-Auction. It appears that the same was incorporated subsequently and though the petitioner in WP(C) No.6509/2015 had enclosed the aforesaid Special Conditions of Sale of Scrap Materials Through e-Auction, the said Clause was not made part of the records. Clause-11.6.5 reads as follows:- “11.6.5 In case the purchaser of a lot defaults in depositing balance sale value for the sold lot within allowed period of 20 days from the date of auction, no DP extension, beyond the free delivery period of 50 days shall be granted without ground rent on any reason whatsoever.” 14. The contention that is advanced by the learned Standing counsel appearing for the Railways as well as by Mr. Prasad is that the petitioners had made the payment of BSV beyond the stipulated period of 20 (twenty) days and as they could not take delivery within the free delivery period of 50 (fifty) days, they have to pay ground rent when they pray for taking delivery beyond the period of 50 (fifty) days. 15. Clause-11.6.5 has to be interpreted in a manner so that it does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. Clause-11.6.5 has to be interpreted in a manner so that it does not offend Article 14 of the Constitution of India. This Clause has to be understood to mean that in a given case where the BSV was paid beyond the period of 20 (twenty) days and a successful tenderer makes a prayer subsequently for extension of delivery period beyond 50 (fifty) days, such prayer can be accepted only on payment of ground rent and not otherwise. Surely, this Clause cannot be attracted in a case where the authorities, who are entrusted with the task of delivering the materials, cannot make delivery of auctioned goods to the auction purchaser and cancels the date of delivery due to unavoidable situations or for administrative reasons. “Any reason whatsoever”, as appearing therein, cannot be construed to include cancellation of date of delivery by the railways for their inability to deliver goods. Auction purchasers cannot be penalized by way of imposition of ground rent as they are not responsible for such cancellation. It is another matter that because of such cancellation, they would have to take delivery of materials beyond the free period of 50 (fifty) days. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, Clause-11.6.5 does not come to the aid of the Railways to successfully defend their claim for ground rent in the facts and circumstances of the cases. 16. In view of the above discussions, the writ petitions are allowed. At this stage, Mr. Prasad submits that the application for fixing the fresh date of delivery has to be made before the jurisdictional Deputy Chief Engineer. In view of the above, the petitioners individually will make a fresh application before the jurisdictional Deputy Chief Engineer on or before 05.01.2017 indicating the dates on which they intend to take delivery of the materials. It is made clear that from the date of application, the petitioner will have 20 (twenty) days’ time to take free delivery. Within a period of three days from the date of receipt of the applications, the authority will inform the petitioners regarding date of delivery, which, necessarily, has to be within 20 (twenty) days from the date of application. 17. Writ petitions stand disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions.