IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15770 of 2008 SHISHIR CHANDRA CHOUDHARY . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . with CWJC No.15772 of 2008 SANJIWAN PRASAD SHARMA . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . with CWJC No.15773 of 2008 BIJAY KUMAR YADAV . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . with CWJC No.15775 of 2008 MIHIR KUMAR CHOUDHARY . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . with CWJC No.16231 of 2008 NEBA LAL YADAV . Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS . ----------- For petitioners : M/S Rajesh Kr. Singh with Ranjan Kumar Jha, Advocates. For Railways : M/S Parul Ranjan, Anil Singh , Advocates. ----------- 3/ 10-11-2009 All the writ applications have been heard and is being disposed of with this common order, in view of the fact that common questions of law and fact have been raised. Petitioners are Halt Contractors and were brought into picture by the respondent- railways by virtue of agreements entered between them, some of them relating to as far back as 1973. In terms of the agreement, the petitioners have to shoulder their responsibility as Halt - 2 - Contractors. There is no time barrier or bar to the subsistence of the contract except what is stated in Clause-18 of Annexure-1. Clause 18 of Annexure-1 lays down that the agreement is terminable upon one month’s notice by writing on either side. The writ applications came to be filed by the petitioners alarmed by an advertisement, which was issued by the Maldah Division of the Indian Railways in a local Newspaper of 28th September, 2008. The advertisement invited applications from all eligible persons to be considered for appointment as Halt Contractors. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that during the subsistence of the agreement, there is no occasion to issue a fresh advertisement for appointment of Halt Contractors, on the halts of which the petitioners are contractors for more than 2 to 3 decades. The advertisement, therefore, needs to be quashed and interfered with. This matter was initially heard and an interim order was passed by a Bench of this Court on 05.02.2009 with a direction upon the respondent-Railway authorities to file their counter-affidavit. The same has been done now. Stand of the railways is that over a period of time the policy of appointment of Halt Contractors has been review and undergone change. The said change was notified by - 3 - the Railway Board by its communication dated 24th June, 2005. As per the policy decision a time barrier was placed on the agreement. Appointment of Halt contractors was to be for a period of five years, extendable by another five years on the basis of satisfactory service. Few other guidelines and benefits have also been laid down. Submission of the counsel, representing the railways, is that the policy decision became a subject matter of challenge before the Kolkata High Court by way of several writ applications. The matter was heard and decided vide order dated 09.07.2009 in W.P.4607(W) of 2008. The learned Single Judge after taking into consideration rival submissions came to a considered opinion that the courts have limited role to play in matters of such policy when it came to interfering with the same. Only if there is element of arbitrariness or breach of any law or fundamental rights of a citizen is established that the court when the court intervenes. After taking into consideration the various provisions stated in the policy, the Court dismissed the writ applications upholding the policy. A copy of the decision has been furnished before the court for consideration and the same is being taken on record. Submission of the petitioners thereafter is that the process of selection, which is undertaken, can only be - 4 - done provided the subsisting agreement is brought to an end. In absence of vacuum the process cannot be undergone. This contention of the petitioners is misplaced because they are not being ousted from their position as of today. No doubt an exercise under the changed policy has been taken by the railways and that exercise can be undertaken by them in view of the reasonableness of the said policy. But it goes without saying that the respondents too have to take steps in terms of Clause-18 of the agreement prior to any final decisions. One aspect, which cannot be overlooked, is that the present halt contractors are not disqualified from appearing or participating in the selection process. That by itself shows that the policy in no way creates any impediment in fresh or reconsideration of the present halt contractors, who have otherwise had a long stint with the railways. To say that the railways cannot implement the said policy and no exercise can be carried out by them for fresh selection, is overstaying the provisions of law . The writ applications are disposed of with an observation that before selection or appointment of new halt contractors are effected, the petitioners would be required to be given one month’s notice in writing by the respondents expressing their desire to bring to an end the - 5 - agreements. Till that is done, the petitioners would not be removed. All the writ applications stand disposed of with the aforesaid observation. ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J ) BTiwary/