Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56952-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11400 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rg And Ra Jv Respondent :- North Central Railways (Ncr) And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Kartikeya Saran,Yash Singhal Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J. Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, his client was working under a contract. Challenge in the writ petition is against notice dated 1st April, 2025. A paragraph from the notice is reproduced below. "You are hereby given 48 hours' notice in terms of Clause 62 of Standard General Conditions of Contract to commence works/to make good the progress of works, failing which and on expiry of this period your above contract will stand rescinded and the work under this contract will be carried out independently without your participation and your Security Deposit shall be forfeited and Performance Guarantee shall also be encashed and consequences which may please be noted." He draws attention to his client's letter dated 24th March, 2025 addressed to the Chief Bridge Engineer, being a notice of dispute under clause 63 in General Conditions of Contract (G.C.C.). He submits, the employer has not allowed his client to progress with the work to its completion, given a vague notice with oblique purpose of terminating the contract and taking steps to distress of his client. Pointing out to clause 62 in the GCC, he demonstrates there are several incidents on which a notice thereunder can be issued. None of them have been indicated in impugned notice. On mentioning for urgency, the writ petition has been additionally listed. There be interference. Mr. Tripathi, learned advocate, Central Government Counsel appears on behalf of Union of India and hands up his instructions titled "Brief History of Case". He submits, only 15% of the work was done by petitioner in a long period. Impugned notice was duly issued. The contract has since been terminated and the guarantee has been invoked. Petitioner, if has a claim, must find his remedy. The writ petition is not maintainable. We find from handed up letter dated 15th April, 2025, Bank guarantee dated 20th December, 2023 has been invoked. On behalf of respondents contention is, the contract has been terminated. On the other hand, petitioner had already given a notice of disputes. Considering there is no element of fraud alleged, there cannot be interference with the invocation. Petitioner has to find remedy as provided under the contract. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 Gurpreet Singh (Arindam Sinha, J.) (S.Q.H. Rizvi, J.) Digitally signed by :- GURPREET SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad