JUDGMENT : Samapti Chatterjee, J. The issues to be determined are as follows :- (a) Whether railway authority denied extension of operation for two years in terms of the Clause 'E' of the Railway Board Policy where it stipulates that extension for a period of two years would be granted subject to the payment of 25 per cent extra freight rate? (b) Whether the railway authority has any scope to introduce amended policy of the extension clause thereby making a departure from the existing conditions in the tender documents? (c) While the delay in complying with the condition stipulated in the initial offer letter was condoned by the concerned railway authority then whether there is any scope to introduce amended policy of the extension clause by the railway authority? Fact of the Case 2. The petitioner's case in brief is as follows :- On 28th March, 2006 the respondent railway authority issued Railway Board's Policy No.2006/TC(FM)/10/1. Thereafter sometime in October, 2008 railway authorities floated a tender in the newspaper being tender notification no. Com/G.27/Parcel/Lease VPU-VPH/08 for leasing of a VPH of 25 tones capacity by train no.8030/8029 Ex Kharagpur to LTT on round trip basis for a period of three years. On 15th October, 2008 the petitioner contested in the bid against the said tender upon depositing Rs. 1,00,000/- with FA and CAO South Eastern Railway as earnest money by way of bank drafts. On 3rd March, 2009 the respondent no.4 accepted the petitioner's response to the said tender thereby asking the petitioner to fulfil some documents. Unfortunately on 17th August, 2009 the railway authority cancelled the said letter of acceptance. Challenging the said cancellation the petitioner moved writ petition being W.P No.11747 (W) of 2011 before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 26th September, 2011 thereby directing the respondent no.4 to consider the prayer of the petitioner within a fortnight if no fresh tender has been issued. On 7th October, 2011 the respondent no.4 arranged a hearing for consideration of the petitioner's prayer and on 16th November, 2011 the respondent authority allowed the petitioner to load/unload goods in 23 tones VP in train no.8030/8029 in LTT-Kharagpur-LTT route on round trips at Kharagpur station. On 16th November, 2011 the petitioner made representation for extension of the leasing up to Shalimar. On 16th November, 2011 the petitioner made representation for extension of the leasing up to Shalimar. Pursuant to the order passed on 13th January, 2012 in W.P No.519 (W) of 2012 the respondent authority allowed the petitioner to load/unload at Shalimar station instead of Kharagpur station. On 29th February, 2012 the Hon'ble Single Bench disposed of another writ petition being WP No.17728 (W) of 2011 thereby directing the respondent to collect freight rate @ 'P' Scale instead of 'R' Scale. Challenging the said order the respondent authority filed an appeal and the Hon'ble Division Bench on March, 2016 was pleased to dismiss the said appeal filed by the respondent authority. On 9th April, 2014, the respondent no.4 issued a letter to the petitioner thereby informing him to execute the agreement from Kharagpur to LTT. Against that letter the petitioner informed the authority that pursuant to the interim order passed in WP no.519 (W) of 2012 the petitioner is entitled to carry on loading and unloading facilities at Shalimar instead of Kharagpur. But the respondent authority without paying any heed to the petitioner's representation, on 14th April, 2014 directed the petitioner to resume operation from Kharagpur immediately otherwise the respondent authority will take step for stoppage of allotment of wrecks to the petitioner. Challenging the direction the petitioner again filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court being WP no.16117 (W) of 2014. On 27th July, 2014 the said writ petition was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to ensure adequate facilities to the petitioner for smooth operation of loading and unloading. Thereafter the railway authority issued a letter for extension of agreement. Against that petitioner made representation for extension of lease operation for two more years as per the Railway Board's Policy of 2006. The petitioner's representation was rejected by the railway authority. Challenging the same the petitioner filed a writ petition and on 19th January, 2015 the said writ petition being WP No.31486 (W) of 2014 was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to re-visit the petitioner's representation. On 30th January, 2015 hearing was held and a demand notice was issued by the respondent no.8. Against that the petitioner made representation but rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 2nd February, 2015 the impugned order dated 13th February, 2015 was issued. Submissions of the Learned Advocates 3. Mr. On 30th January, 2015 hearing was held and a demand notice was issued by the respondent no.8. Against that the petitioner made representation but rejecting the petitioner's representation dated 2nd February, 2015 the impugned order dated 13th February, 2015 was issued. Submissions of the Learned Advocates 3. Mr. Saptangshu Basu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argued that the railway authority misconstrued the order of the Hon'ble Court thereby relying upon the FM-Circular No.6 of 2014 which has no manner of application in the present case in hand. 4. Mr. Basu also emphasized Clause 3.0 (i) of the said circular which says that "The cases, where tender have been finalised and Letter of Allotment (LOI) has been issued to the party by the Railway administration prior to 1st May, 2014, the lease holder shall be allowed to operate the leasing contract as per the policy guidelines prevailing at that time." 5. Mr. Basu also drew my attention to Clause 'E' of the policy of 2006 which is quoted below :- "Clause 'E'- Extension of Lease : 1. Extension of lease is permissible only in case of long term lease of 3 years. 2. In case of Long Term Lease, on expiry of the contract period, the same can be extended only once by 2 more years at a lease rate of 25% more than the lumpsum leased freight rate 3. Such extension will be subject to satisfactory performance by the lease holder, without any penalty for overloading or violation of any provision of the contract. 4. In case of expiry of contract period and non-finalization of new contract due to administrative delays temporary extension can be permitted by the CCM only once, for a period of 3 months." 6. Mr. Basu also vehemently contended that the petitioner is governed under policy of 2006 when the tender was floated in the present case. Therefore, subsequent parcel lease policy of 2010 is not applicable in the petitioner's case. 7. Mr. Mr. Basu also vehemently contended that the petitioner is governed under policy of 2006 when the tender was floated in the present case. Therefore, subsequent parcel lease policy of 2010 is not applicable in the petitioner's case. 7. Mr. Basu further strongly argued that under the 2006 policy the right has accrued in favour of the lease holder for extension at the instance of leassee and the leaser is bound to extend the lease for a period of two years upon payment of 25 per cent extra freight charges but in the present case respondent/railway authority failed and neglected to extend the petitioner's lease for further period of two years under the policy of 2006. 8. Mr. Basu also contended that the authority with a malafide intention to put stigma on the lessee that the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory had framed charges of overloading and Challenging the same the petitioner moved before this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court directed the authority to conduct re-weighment and on re-weighment it was found that the allegation of overloading was false and baseless. 9. Mr. Basu also contended that time and again the petitioner approached the railway authority for formal execution of the agreement with the petitioner as per 2006 policy but that has not been done by the authority till date though time to time direction was given by the Hon'ble Court upon the railway authority to allow extension of lease for two years as per existing policy of 2006 upon payment of 25 per cent extra freight charges. 10. Mr. Basu also drew my attention to Sub-Paragraph II of the impugned speaking order dated 13th February, 2015 which interalia states "M/s Mahavir Logistics has violated the terms and conditions as they had failed to load as many as 33 occasions ex-Kharagpur to LTT during the month from May, 2014, to September, 2014. As a result of this non-loading Sr. TIA/Kharagpur-II has raised a debit of Rs. 15,90,039 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Ninety Thousand and Thirty Nine only) which is outstanding and required to be paid by M/s Mahavir Logistics. As a result of this non-loading Sr. TIA/Kharagpur-II has raised a debit of Rs. 15,90,039 (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Ninety Thousand and Thirty Nine only) which is outstanding and required to be paid by M/s Mahavir Logistics. Thereby Mahavir Logistics has violated the terms and conditions of the tender documents and FM Circular No.12 of 2006" and vehemently urged that Sub-Paragraph II of the impugned speaking order showed absolute non-application of mind on the part of the respondent authority in as much as on 23rd May, 2014 the petitioner made representation before the competent authority thereby ventilating the inconveniences faced by the petitioner while operating parcel van from Kharagpur. 11. Mr. Basu also pointed out some of the grievances as indicated in the petitioner's letter dated 23rd May, 2014 which are quoted below : "(I) Lack of adequate infrastructure facilities whereby the undersigned cannot avail the facility of stacking goods and usage of trucks at the points of loading and unloading of parcel van. (II) the facility so provided by the authority restricts even the usage of hand carts to the above mentioned place. (III) absence of overhead shed at the place of loading unloading which causes inconvenience to both personnel and cargo. It is further stated that the cargo includes goods of perishable nature as well as life saving drugs. (IV) As per the Railway Board's comprehensive leasing policy we are supposed to get placement of the Parcel Van within 3 hours of the scheduled arrival of the train at KGP. (V) Even after arrival of the train on scheduled time the parcel van cannot be detached due to lack of infrastructural facilities at KGP and the parcel van in question has been over carried to Shalimar on several occasions and sent back to KGP by Shalimar for unloading thereby causing time gap of expected and actual for unloading between 36-48 hours which causes us huge financial and brand name loss." 12. Mr. Basu also contended that by judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2014 the decision of the railway authority dated 4th June, 2014 was set aside by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court directed as follows : "Accordingly, the order dated 4.6.2014 is set aside. Mr. Basu also contended that by judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2014 the decision of the railway authority dated 4th June, 2014 was set aside by this Hon'ble Court and the Hon'ble Court directed as follows : "Accordingly, the order dated 4.6.2014 is set aside. Respondent no.4 is directed to reconsider the representations dated 8.5.2014 and 23.05.2014 afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and pass a reasoned order thereon with regard to the availability of adequate infrastructural facilities in the platforms where the train in question is attached and detached at Kharagpur. In the event the respondent no.4 is of the opinion that such facilities are not adequate, he shall take necessary steps for rendering adequate improvement thereto so as to enable the petitioners to discharge their responsibilities under the proposed agreement. Reasoned order shall be passed within 30 days from the date of communication of this order and order, so passed, shall be communicated to the petitioners within two weeks thereafter." 13. Mr. Basu further contended that the authority by its acts has allowed the petitioner to operate on the basis of the 2006 policy. This act on the part of the respondent authority virtually granted sanction or permission in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention Mr. Basu relied on a Hon'ble Division Bench decision reported in AIR 1975 Calcutta Page-194 Paragraph-8 (Shambhunath Pal and Others v. Indian Iron & Steel Co. Ltd). Extract of the Paragraph-8 is quoted below :- "Para-8-……..Otherwise it cannot be said that the landlord allowed the tenant to erect pucca structure as contemplated in Section 7 (5) of the West Bengal Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act. "Allow" does not simply mean non-interference. It involves some kind of mental operation helpful or conducive to some act, here "erection of pucca structure during its operation or previous to such operation". Whether the landlord has allowed pucca structure or not will depend on facts and circumstances in each case. In the instant case there is no evidence that the plaintiff company or any of its competent and duly authorised officers had any knowledge about the construction. The story of allowing of pucca structure has been disbelieved by both the courts below and we accept that the said findings are quite correct. We, Therefore, overrule the first contention urged from the side of the appellants." And Mr. The story of allowing of pucca structure has been disbelieved by both the courts below and we accept that the said findings are quite correct. We, Therefore, overrule the first contention urged from the side of the appellants." And Mr. Basu also relied on a Hon'ble Single Bench decision reported in AIR 1967 Calcutta Page-538 Paragraph-8 (Pundarikaksha Basu and Others v. Sardar Chanda Singh and Others). Extract of Paragraph-8 is quoted below :- "…….The word 'allow' again does not imply imposition of condition and in the context of Section 7 (5) of the Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act, it means allow without any condition whatsoever. I find no ambiguity. The question is the meaning of the word 'allow' in law and that is not ambiguous. Hence, this point is overruled. The appeal is allowed, the order of the Appeal Court set aside and that of the Trial Court is restored. No order as to costs." 14. Before parting with his argument Mr. Basu submitted that the impugned order dated 30th January, 2015 issued by the respondent authority thereby directing the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 15,90,039/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakh Ninety Thousand and Thirty Nine only) for non-operation of 33 days and also the speaking order dated 13th February, 2015 passed by the respondent authority thereby rejecting the petitioner's prayer for extension in terms of Clause 'E' of the comprehensive parcel lease policy of 2006 should be set aside by this Hon'ble Court and further the respondent authority be directed to extend the operation of legal parcel van for two more years in favour of the petitioner upon payment of 25 per cent extra freight charges on the basis of the offer letter dated 7th October, 2011 in terms of Clause 'E' FMCircular No.12 of 2006 dated 28th March, 2006. 15. Per contra, Mr. Moloy Kumar Das, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent authority contended that the impugned order dated 13th February, 2015 is a elaborately reasoned order and drew my attention to the following reasons furnished by the competent authority in the impugned order :- "(a) That the petitioner did not execute any agreement in spite of repeated requests and in spite of several directions of the Hon'ble High Court. In the absence of a valid agreement, the petitioner was allowed to load and unload on the basis of the tender document submitted on 15th of October, 2008. In the absence of a valid agreement, the petitioner was allowed to load and unload on the basis of the tender document submitted on 15th of October, 2008. The petitioner has defaulted in loading and unloading on as many as 33 occasions for the period between May, 2014 to September, 2014, thereby causing loss to the railway exchequer to the tune of Rs. 15,90,039/-. The parcel rate for loading and unloading has been revised from 1st of June, 2012 and also from 1st of October, 2013 and has been implemented by the Railway Board in terms of the circular dated 9th of February, 2010. If in the event, the petitioner is allowed to continue loading and unloading operations at the old rate, railway respondents stand to lose revenue to the tune of Rs. 1,17,84,032/- in two years. (b) The petitioner has stopped loading and unloading operations after completion of the initial period of the tender on the 16th of November, 2014. (c) Taking notice of the fact that the petitioner has not executed any agreement, the extension clause being part of the tender document cannot be availed of by him to his benefit. (d) After a gap of two years of cancellation of the offer the petitioner filed one writ petition after another before this Hon'ble Court and is claiming to continue loading and unloading operations ex-Kharagpur at the old rate and under the 2006 policy although both the policy and the rate stood revised from time to time." 16. Mr. Das further vehemently contended that whenever infrastructural facilities in a station gets developed then only stations are notified as open for dealing of passengers, parcel and goods traffic as the case may be. In the present case Kharagpur is a notified A (I) category station having all infrastructural facilities like high level platform, light facilities, approach roads etc. The petitioner was allowed pursuant to the Hon'ble Court order for loading/unloading ex-Kharagpur to LTT on round trip in VPH by train no.18030/18029 vide officer letter dated 9th April, 2014. But unfortunately in spite of this the petitioner failed to load in the VPH during the period from May 2014 to September, 2014. 17. Mr. Das further vehemently urged that since the petitioner failed to avail of the facilities during period May to September, 2014 therefore he cannot claim any benefit under Para-'E' of the FM-Circular No.12 of 2016. 18. Mr. 17. Mr. Das further vehemently urged that since the petitioner failed to avail of the facilities during period May to September, 2014 therefore he cannot claim any benefit under Para-'E' of the FM-Circular No.12 of 2016. 18. Mr. Das also pointed out that Railway Board Circular No. 2006/TC(FM)/10/01 dated 28th March, 2006 Para-'E' Item No.3 states as follows :- "Such extension will be subject to satisfactory performance by the lease holder without any penalty or overloading or violation of any provision of contract". 19. Mr. Das also pointed out that the petitioner violated the terms and conditions as they failed to load as many as 33 occasions ex-Kharagpur to LTT during the month of May, 2014 to September, 2014. As a result of this non-loading Sr. TIA/Kharagpur-II has raised a debit of Rs. 15,90,039/- (Rupees Fifteen lakhs ninety thousand and thirty nine) only which is outstanding and require to be paid by the petitioner. 20. Mr. Das further vehemently argued that tender for lease VPH on round trip basis by train no.18030/18029 ex-Kharagpur to LTT was floated on September, 2008 i.e. more than seven years ago. As the time passed railway board has modified/revised lease policy as per demand including changing of parcel train. Therefore, in such changed circumstances extension to operate VPH for further two years by the above mentioned train cannot be considered in favour of the petitioner. As a result whereof the petitioner's representation was turned down by the impugned order. 21. Mr. Das also vehemently contended that despite repeated directions from this Hon'ble Court as well as the repeated requests vide office letters dated 7th October, 2011, 9th April, 2014, 17th September, 2014 and 8th October, 2014 the petitioner company failed to execute the agreement. Therefore, in absence of a valid contract M/s Mahavir Logistics was allowed loading/unloading in VPH on round trip by train no.18030/18029 as per terms and conditions of the tender document signed and submitted on 15th October, 2008. 22. Mr. Das further vehemently contended that in case of train no.18030/18029 tender was floated with terms and conditions to be followed in the tender process by the tenderer and the railway administration as given in the tender document. 23. Mr. 22. Mr. Das further vehemently contended that in case of train no.18030/18029 tender was floated with terms and conditions to be followed in the tender process by the tenderer and the railway administration as given in the tender document. 23. Mr. Das further contended that extension clause was not part of the tender document as the petitioner has not executed tender agreement, therefore the petitioner cannot claim to allow them to operate for two years more after depositing 25 per cent extra freight rate. 24. Mr. Das also vehemently argued that in passage of time the parcel rate has been revised with effect from 1st June, 2012 and 1st October, 2013 as well as charging scale of Parcel Traffic by train no.18030/18029, Shalimar-LTT express from Scale 'P' to Scale 'R' in respect to VPS has been implemented with effect from 9th February, 2010 as per Railway Board FM Circular no.3 of 2010 but the petitioner was operating VPH ex-Kharagpur-LTT-Kharagpur in Scale 'P' at per trip freight Re. 48,1837- (one side freight) including 2% DFC charge and 3.708 to service charge. On enhancing 25 per cent on this freight it would be Rs. 60,2297/- At present reserve price freight for one side i.e. ex-Kharagpur to LTT including 2 per cent DFC charge and 3.708 Service charge is Rs. 1,105,727/-. Therefore if the petitioner is allowed to operate VPH on two years extension then railway will suffer huge loss towards freight i.e. approximately Rs. 1,17,84,0327/- in two years for one side and also approximately same amount will be involved ex-LTT to KGP therefore, the petitioner's representation for extension of two years upon payment of 25 per cent extra freight rate on the basis of 2006 policy cannot be entertained. Accordingly it was rightly turned down by the authority. 25. Before parting with the argument Mr. Das contended that there is no infirmity, illegality or irregularity in the impugned decision which deserves interference by this Hon'ble Court. Decision with Reasons 26. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned Advocates appearing for the parties and after perusing the records I find that railway authority has allowed the petitioner to carry on loading/unloading in VPH on round trip by train no.18030/18029 in absence of valid agreement. This arrangement was made only on the basis of terms and conditions of the tender document signed and submitted on 15th October, 2008 by the petitioner. This arrangement was made only on the basis of terms and conditions of the tender document signed and submitted on 15th October, 2008 by the petitioner. Therefore, in my considered view if the petitioner was allowed to carry on his loading and unloading business on the basis of the tender document dated 15th October, 2008, uninterruptedly without having any valid contract executed between the parties, it should be presumed that the railway authority accepted that the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of Clause 'E' of the FM-Circular No.12 of 2006 policy (supra). Consequently it is obligatory on the part of the respondent railway authority to allow two years extension upon compliance of the terms as narrated under the Clause 'E' of the said FM-Circular No.12 of 2006 and the Railway authority is estopped from contending to the contrary. 27. Therefore, in my opinion at this stage petitioner's prayer for grant of two years extension after fulfilment of the formalities as laid down under Clause 'E' of the said FM-Circular No.12 of 2006 policy cannot be turned down by the railway authority on the purported plea that the petitioner failed to load as many as 33 occasions from ex-Kharagpur to LTT during the month of May, 2014 to September, 2014. Furthermore, the railway authority also cannot turn down the petitioner's prayer for extension of two years on the ground that in passage of time freight rate has been enhanced to Rs. 1,105,727/- and therefore, if the petitioner's prayer is allowed then the authority will suffer a huge amount towards the freight rate approximately Rs. 1,17,84,0327/- in two years. Such ground taken by Railway is devoid of any merit. 28. Considering the discussions as above, in my opinion the impugned decision dated 13th February, 2015 passed by Senior Division Commerce Manager, Kharagpur cannot be sustained. 29. Accordingly the impugned decision dated 13th February, 2015 issued by Senior Division Commerce Manager is hereby quashed and set aside. 30. I direct the railway authority to revisit the issue in the light of the discussions as above after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 31. The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. 32. With this direction this writ petition is allowed and disposed of however no order as to costs. 33. 31. The entire exercise shall be completed within eight weeks from the date of communication of the order. 32. With this direction this writ petition is allowed and disposed of however no order as to costs. 33. Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, after fulfilling all the formalities. Writ petition allowed.