1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6108 OF 2008 Mahalaxmi Rail Movers. .... Petitioner. vs. Union of India & Ors. .... Respondents. Mr. G.P. Walia for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents. CORAM : J.N. PATEL, & K.K. TATED, JJ. DATE : 27TH AUGUST, 2008. P.C. . Heard. 2. The Petitioner has approached this court by 2 invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India impugning the decision of the respondent terminating their contract by their letter dated 23.7.2008 on the ground that the petitioner has commited financial irregularities with the intention to defraud the revenue and, therefore, they invoked clause 21.1 of the agreement and cancelled the contract in terms of Para 21(1) of the terms and conditions of the contract. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Railways has drawn our attention to the fact that the agreement provides an arbitration clause, specifically clause 26 which reads as under :- “26. ARBITRATION CLAUSE In the event of any disputes or differences between the parties as to the construction or interpretation of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement or to the application and as to the rights, duties and obligations of the parties hereto (except 3 the decision whereof is herein expressly provided for) the same shall together with counter claim or set off be referred to the sole arbitration of General Manager or a Gazetted Officer of the railway not below the grade of JAG nominated by the General Manager or the person so appointed and the decision of the General Manager or of the person so appointed shall be final and binding on the parties hereto and shall be subject to provision of the Indian Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the rules thereunder and any statutory modification thereof.” Otherwise the ancilliary clauses subserve the matter to be decided by the arbitrator. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the fact that the impugned notice of termination puts an end to the contract in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the same 4 clause may not be attracted and that the petitioner is eligible to get his matter adjudicated by this Court in its writ jurisdiction and has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.K. Yadav vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., reported in 1993 SCC (L&S) 723 and the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 7th June, 2006 in the case of Mahavir Prasad Sharma vs. Union of India & Anr. What we find from the impugned notice is that it puts an end to the contract between the parties of the leasing of VPH by Train No. 2925 0 2926 Ex.BDTS-ASR-BDTS. One month's notice of cancellation is given to the petitioner for having committed financial irregularities with an intention to defraud the revenue which a dispute which will have to be adjudicated which arises out of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties and would be squarely covered by the arbitration clause. 5. Therefore, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we permit the petitoner to withdraw 5 the petition and seek the remedy provided under clause 26 of the terms and conditions of the contract. 5. In order to enable the petitioner to avail of the remedy under the terms and conditions of the contract, we direct the respondent not to give effect to the operation and implementation of the notice of termination for a period of 15 days from today. The petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty. 6. The learned counsel for the parties be given an authenticated copy of this order to act upon it. (J.N. PATEL, J.) (K.K. TATED, J.)