IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3326 of 2008 SKY LINE, a Registered N.G.O. under Societies Registration Act 21 of 1860, having its registered office at Bagmali, Post-Hajipur, District- Vaishali, through its Secretary Brajesh Kumar Pandey, son of Shailendra Kumar Pandey presently resided at Mohalla-Bagmati Post-Hajipur, District-Vaishali. ………Petitioner. Versus 1. East Central Rail, through its General Manager at and P.O.-Hajipur, District-Vaishali. 2. Divisional Rail Manager(Commercial) East Central Rail at and P.O.- Sonepur, District-Chapra. 3. Divisional Rail Manager, East Central Rail, at and P.O.-Sonepur, District-Bhojpur. 4. Station Master, Muzaffarpur Railway Station, at and P.O. and District- Muzaffarpur. ………Respondents. ----------- 05. 07.04.2009 Petitioner is an N.G.O. Railways had advertised outsourcing maintenance and running of sanitary facilities at Railway Stations. Petitioner’s bid was accepted and communicated. At that time public utilities were still being constructed. Petitioner deposited earnest money and security amount as also paper for the agreement but admittedly no agreement was executed. In the meantime, as construction had not yet been completed, Railways revised its policy and decided to convert those toilets into deluxe toilets with more facilities. This became incongruous with earlier settlement. In view of change policy, Railways withdrew from the said agreement and refunded the entire money deposited by petitioner clearly pointed out that constructions had not been 2 completed and revised work was being taken up. Petitioner submits that the settlements having been made with the petitioner, Railways can not now back out of it. On the other hand, Railways submit that admittedly the petitioner had not yet deposited the first year rental nor had any agreement being executed as yet. There being a change of policy and a change in the construction and that Railways were eager to resettle the matter on fresh term identified. Thus the actions of the Railways can not be termed as per se arbitrary calling for interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction. I, therefore, decline to interfere in the matter. The writ application is accordingly dismissed. Shageer (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)