IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16369 of 2009 LAWKESH SINGH SON OF SRI RAJENDRA SINGH RESIDENT OF MOHALLA MARIPUR, POWER HOUSE ROAD, NEAR CIRCUIT HOUSE, P.S. KAZI MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT MUZAFFARPUR. Versus 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER, (COMMERCIAL) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 2. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 3. THE CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER (FREIGHT MARKETING), EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, HAJIPUR. 4. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, SONEPUR. 5. THE CHIEF PARCEL SUPERVISOR (C.P.S.) EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, MUZAFFARPUR. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. B. K. Choudhary, Sr. Advocate, & Mr. Ranjan Kumar Sinha, Ram Shankar Prasad. For the Respondents :- Mr. Sandeep Jha. ------- 3 19/01/2010 Termination of an agreement entered into between the petitioner and the respondent railway authorities vide Annexure-6 dated 16.11.2009 is the subject matter of dispute in the present writ application. Background to the present case is that the petitioner had been leased a parcel van in the train what is known as Sapt Kranti Express which is to operate between Muzaffarpur – New Delhi and back to Muzaffarpur. On an - 2 - intelligence report received by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, search was carried out in the said leased parcel van at Lucknow railway station on 7.9.2009. Search led to recovery of smuggled goods as well as narcotics. This led to the termination of the agreement vide communication dated 16.11.2009. Learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioner has many a submissions to make with regard to the way the search was carried out, Panchnama was drawn up and the credibility of the witnesses who were utilized in the search operation and preparation of the Panchnama but the Court is not willing to go into all these aspects of the matter for the primary reason that there is concluded contract between the petitioner and the respondent railways and the terms and conditions of the said contract are comprehensive as would be evident from Annexure-2 to the writ application. Clause 26 of the said agreement lays down the procedure in case of dispute between the railway administration and the lease holder. Looking at the dimension of the dispute where various factual aspects and the evidence are required to be gone into, it will be in - 3 - the interest of the petitioner and may be the railways as well to take recourse to clause 26 of the said agreement. If the petitioner approaches the respondents raising a dispute with regard to the termination order contained in Annexure-6, the respondent authorities will be well advised to respond to the request at the earliest and an early adjudication will be in the interest of both the petitioner as well as respondent authorities in this regard. This writ application is disposed of with the above liberty without expressing any opinion on the merits of the pleadings in the present writ application. AMIN (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)