- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26122 WP No. 5171 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 5171 OF 2023 (GM-TEN) BETWEEN: SHRI. P. VENUGOPAL REDDY S/O SHRI GOPI REDDY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RAILWAY CONTRACTOR FLAT NO.108 SAMAYA SONATA APARTMENTS M S PALYA, VIDYARANYAPURA BENGALURU-560 097 REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA SHRI A ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O LATE ABDUL KHADAR AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS NO.421E, E BLOCK NEELADRI MAHAL JAYAMAHAL EXTENSION NANDI DURGA ROAD BENSON TOWN POST BENGALURU-560 046. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVIKANTH A.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTIONS) SOUTHERN RAILWAY ADMINISTRATION SOUTHERN RAILWAYS MANGALORE-574 142. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26122 WP No. 5171 of 2023 2. THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF ENGINEER(CONSTRUCTIONS) SOUTHERN RAILWAYS ERNAKULAM-682 011 KERALA STATE. 3. THE GENERAL MANAGER SOUTHERN RAILWAYS CHENNAI-600 001 TAMIL NADU. 4. MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS UNION OF INDIA/GOVT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY NEW DELHI-110 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.S. VENKATANARAYANA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4 (VK NOT FILED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TERMINATION NOTICE BEARING NO. W. 148/CN/MAQ/PVR/3 DATED 20.02.23 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 1 AT ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26122 WP No. 5171 of 2023 ORAL ORDER On 02.06.2026, this Court has passed the following: ''ORDER None appears for the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the dispute arise out of the termination of a contract which is not amenable to be adjudicated under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He relies upon the order dated 03.09.2025 of the Division Bench of this Court passed in W.A.No.1709/2024, arising out of very same contract, wherein the Division Bench has held that since factual aspects of the matter involved, it would not be appropriate to examine such contentious questions of fact that proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since there is no representation of the counsel for the petitioner, in the interest of justice, list this matter on 03.06.2026 for the say of the petitioner. '' 2. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Accepting the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents. Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 47