Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:52222-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8967 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S C.P. Construction And Another Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikash Bhatnagar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. 1. Mr. Vikash Bhatnagar, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is termination notice dated 19 February 2024 also debarring his client from participating in future tenders, for two years. He submits, no notice to oppose the proposal for debarment was issued to his client. He refers to order dated 04 February 2025 of Coordinate Bench in Writ-C no. 35215 of 2024 (M/S Dynamic Enterprises and another Vs. Union of India and another) to submit, there be interference with impugned debarment order. 2. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, learned advocate Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of Union of India (Railways) and submits, clause 4.11.8 in the general conditions of contract provides for rescission of contract with consequence of debarment of two years. The clause is reproduced below. "Whenever the contract is rescinded, the Performance Guarantees shall be encashed / forfeited. The balance work or services for the same shall be got done independently without risk & cost of the failed contractor. The failed contractor shall be debarred for a period of 2 years from the date of such rescindment from participating in the bid which includes delivery of balance services of failed contract. If the failed contractor is a Partnership firm, then every member / partner of such a firm shall be debarred for a period of 2 years from the date of such rescindment from participating in the bid which includes delivery of balance services of failed contract in his / her individual capacity." He then refers to seven days' notice dated 9 February 2024 requiring petitioner to improve performance, not improved and hence, cancellation and rescission of the contract. He submits, there is no case for interference. 3. On query Mr. Bhatnagar submits, the contract was rescinded and his client's security money forfeited. 4. We reproduce below a paragraph from order dated 04 February 2025 (supra): "Be that as it may, in the facts of the present case, we find that once the petitioner had submitted its explanation justifying its act of not proceeding with the contract, the least that was expected from the authorities of the Railways was to accord consideration to the petitioner's explanation and then proceed in accordance with law. The order impugned neither refers to the petitioner's explanation nor any reason are assigned not to accept the explanation." Facts in this case are different inasmuch as the contract was terminated with forfeiture of petitioner's security money. Aforesaid clause 4.11.8 clearly provides consequence of debarment. Facts show that petitioners were noticed and thereafter the contract terminated, attracting operation of said clause 4.11.8. 5. We see no reason to interfere. The writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Arif (Arindam Sinha,J.) (S.Q.H. Rizvi,J. Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad