IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.20183 of 2010 M/S K.P.Enterprises, C/o M/s Band Box, Fraser Road, District &Town- Patna through its Partner Deepak Kapoor, son of Sri Suraj Kapoor, resident of 84, Kaveri Apartment, Bander Bagicha, P.S. Kotwali, District & Town-Patna. ……Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India through Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway Danapur Division, Danapur. 2. Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur. 3. Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur. …..Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Advocate. --------- 04/ 17.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents- Railway and its authorities. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging notice of termination of contract dated 26.11.2010 (Annexure-7) by which the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur (respondent no.2) communicated the decision to terminate the contract/licence for supply of bedroll linens in the Train No.2353/2354 Rajendra Nagar Terminal- Nizamuddin Garib Rath against collection of authorised service charge from the passengers at the end of one month of the date of notice purporting to be under Clause 35A of the Agreement dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure-6) between the petitioner and the Railways and also for restraining the respondents authorities from terminating the contract. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits - 2 - that the impugned action of the authorities is violative of Clause 42 of the said agreement. However, from Annexure-10 of I.A.No.149 of 2011 filed in the instant case it is quite apparent that the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division, Danapur had sent a letter dated 22.12.2010 to the petitioner informing that petitioner’s appeal dated 09.12.2010 is under consideration before the competent authority and till the final decision is taken, the notice issued to the petitioner vide letter dated 26.11.2010 is kept at abeyance. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in spite of the aforesaid letter, the authorities have proceeded to issue fresh advertisement on 01.01.2011 (Annexure-9). Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposes the contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner on various points, including clause 40 of the said agreement which provides arbitration. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the materials on record, it is quite apparent that petitioner’s appeal/application is pending before the Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur. Hence, this writ petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to approach the said authority to get his appeal/application decided expeditiously. If this order is produced before the said authority within two weeks from today, the said authority shall decide the petitioner’s said appeal/application within four weeks thereafter. Till then, no further step shall be taken by the authorities against the petitioner - 3 - in that regard. 6. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the said authority, he will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum. Sunil (S. N. Hussain, J.)