1 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 2025:CGHC:33545-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3691 of 2025 Jagannath Tiwari S/o Late Shri Ram Pratap Tiwari Aged About 49 Years Permanent Address - Radhika Residency, Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, District - Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1 - Union Of India Through Secretary, Department Of Railway, New Delhi 2 - The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Zone - Bilaspur, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3 - Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial) S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur, Division - Bilaspur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from CIS) For Petitioner : Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/UOI : Mr. R. K. Mishra, DSGI SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.07.18 10:43:00 +0530 2 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. R. K. Mishra, learned DSGI for the respondents/ UOI. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “a. This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the order dtd 08.07.2025 and allow to the petitioner work in the work place, which granted to him by the authority. b. Cost of the proceedings. c. Any other relief in the discretion of this Hon’ble Court.” 3. The petitioner has preferred this petition challenging the impugned termination notice dated 08.07.2025 whereby the respondent No.3/ Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), S.E.C.R., Bilaspur Division has cancelled the work order dated 08/03/2019. As per the petitioner, the impugned termination notice has been issued in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract executed between the parties without any rhyme and reasons. 3 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authority call upon the NIT for working in the various places for operating the Multi Functional Complex for Passenger for which the petitioner participated in the tender process. After Completing the tender process, the petitioner was succeeded in the tender and the authority called upon the Petitioner to execute the agreement for operating the MFC, thus the agreement has been entered between the parties and the work order dated 08.03.2019 allotted to the petitioner. The Petitioner is successful bidder and awarded the contract after due process of law therefore, they cannot be outset from the work without any cogent reasons. He further submits that the conduct of the authority is against the law and for benefiting other persons which is back door entry in the said work and before issuing such type of termination order, no prior notice, opportunity of hearing, or show cause was provided to the petitioner before initiating such coercive action. In absence of any statutory or alternative efficacious remedy, the petitioner is left with no option but to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to protect its legal and contractual rights and to prevent manifest injustice, irreparable harm, and unlawful deprivation of its financial entitlements. Learned counsel further submits that the impugned termination notice has been issued in violation of the terms and conditions of the contract 4 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 executed between the parties. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ UOI opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner without availing the alternative remedy as per the conditions of the contract agreement executed between the parties, approached this Court by filing this writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned notice and other documents appended with the writ petition. 7. By exercising power under Clause 23.6 which provides that the Railways, in the event, terminates the contract, no compensation shall be payable by the Railways under the conditions mentioned below, impugned notice was issued to the petitioner. For the sake of convenience, Clause 23.6 is quoted below : “23.6 In case the Railway terminates the contract in the event of one or more of the following reasons, no compensation shall be payable by Railways: (i) Non-payment of licence fee (ii) Non-payment of charges for electricity, water to the Railways for the electricity and water supplied. (iii) 'Non-payment of taxes and duties payable to local municipality/authorities. (iv) Non-maintenance of standards for upkeep cleanliness, safety and security aspects as evident 5 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 from penalties imposed to the maximum limit continuously for more than 2 preceding years." (v) Non-completion/ commencement of interiors/ functional arrangements within (02 months for Shops/Budget hotel/Restaurant) and (06 months for Entire MFC) from the date of approval of drawings. (vi) Non-submission of drawings of interiors/ functional arrangements within 30 days from the date of letter of acceptance. (vii) Non-submission of Performance Guarantee/ Security Deposit within 15 days from the date of acceptance of LOA. (viii) Non-execution of Lease Agreement with administration within the standard stipulated time. (ix) 05 (Five) or more instances of penalty imposition for various reasons and gross violation of contract agreement or any other terms and condition will lead to termination of agreement.” 8. Further perusal of the agreement, it appears that there is an arbitration clause No. 28.0 mentioned in the contract agreement executed between the parties for settlement of disputes through arbitration, which reads as under :- “28.0 Arbitration: In the event of any question, dispute or difference arising under this or in connection with this license 9 except as to any matters the execution of which is a specially provided for these conditions) the same shall be 6 WP C No. 3691 of 2025 referred to the Sole Arbitrator appointer by the General Manager, South East Central Railway.” 9. From perusal of the above arbitration clause, it appears that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available under the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the petitioner and the respondents. Despite knowing the said fact without availing the alternative remedy, the petitioner straightaway approached this Court by filing the instant petition. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, further considering the arbitration clause mentioned in the agreement executed between the parties, we do not find any good ground to entertain this writ petition. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage itself. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the petitioner to take recourse to other alternate remedies as may be available to him under the law, if so advised. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S.Bhilwar/ Jyoti