IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.2022 of 2010 In (CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE 749/2010). M/S Om Namo Cargo Shri Ram Puri Bhagwanpur, P.S.Sadar District Muzaffarpur through its partner Dinesh Kumar Rai, son of Jitendra Rai, Resident of village & P.O. Ganguli P.S.Aurai, District Muzaffarpur.. ….. Appellant. Versus 1.The Union Of India Through Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhwan, New Delhi. 2.The General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 3.The Chief Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur. 4.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager cum-Divisional Railway Manager, (c )East Central Railway, Sonpur. 5.The Divisional Commercial Manager ©, East Central Railway, Sonpur. 6.The Director, Freight Marketing Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 7.The Executive Director, Freight Marketing, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 8.The Chief Parcel Supervisor, Muzaffarpur. ……. Respondents. ---------------------------------- 5. 9.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the Railways. The writ Court, by the order under appeal dated 1st July 2010 has granted partial relief to the appellant. It has directed that for 12 days during 14th September 2009 and 30th November 2009, Railways could not have made a demand when the tender of the petitioner had already been cancelled on 9th September 2009 and security deposit had also been forfeited. It is not in dispute that by an order passed in another writ petition on 4th December 2009, the 2 order of the Railway cancelling the tender was quashed but it was held by that order that the petitioner would be bound to follow the provisions in subsequent circular dated 13th Mach 2007 and meet the obligation conferred upon him. He was to clear all the standing dues of the Railway within two weeks from 4th December 2009. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that even for earlier period being from 20th April 2009, the Railway could not have raised any demand because the writ- petitioner/appellant had served upon the Railway a notice or request that the contract be kept under suspension on account of dispute between the parties. The reply of learned counsel for the Railway is that such unilateral act did not absolve the writ-petitioner of his liability under the contract and, hence, the writ Court rightly did not grant any further relief to the appellant. He further submitted that while disposing of the earlier writ petition by order dated 4th December 2009 (Annexure-3), this Court had clarified that the petitioner would have to meet the obligation in terms of subsequent Circular dated 13th March 2007 and at that stage the writ petitioner did not seek any relief on account of the alleged notice of suspension of the contract dated 4th April 3 2009. According to the learned counsel for the Railway such claim is now barred even by the principle of constructive res judicata. On considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are in agreement with the writ Court and find that the appellant is not entitled to any further relief in respect of the remaining outstanding dues. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. Jay/ (Shiva Kirti Singh,J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)