DEBASISH KAR GUPTA,J. - (1.) Let supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners be kept on record.
(2.) This writ application is directed against an order passed by the respondent No. 4 under Memo No. COM/G-27/Parcel-Lease/VP 287060 dated August 22, 2011 rejecting an application of the petitioners dated June 27, 2011. By virtue of the impugned order, the respondent No. 4 rejected the prayer of the petitioners for extension of period of lease agreement relating to leasing out of a parcel van in Train Nos.12870/12869 Shalimar-CSTM-Shalimar on round trip basis. The agreement contained clause 20.1 entitling the petitioners for submitting an application for extension of the period of lease for a further period of 2 years at a leasing rate 25 percent more than the lump sum lease rent subject to satisfactory performance by the lessee, without any penalty for overloading or violation of the provisions of the contract.
(3.) Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties as also considering the impugned order, I find no reason was assigned in the above impugned order for rejecting the application of the petitioners in terms of clause 20.1 of the lease agreement under reference. No affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the respondent authority to bring any material on record which prevents them from extending the period of the lease agreement under reference.;