WP(C) 3610/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B. P. KATAKEY Heard Mr I Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr UK Nair, learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition with the following pr ayer: Under the above circumstances, it is therefore prayed that Your Lordshi p would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule ca lling upon the Respondents to show cause as to why an appropriate writ of Mandam us Certiorari or any other writ/order/direction shall not be issued - directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.10 lacs(ten lacs) for cancellation of petitioner’s engagement as Halt contractor considering his past and future loss, mental agony, harassment and loss of valuable time and upon perusal of the reco rds, causes shown if any and hearing the parties would be pleased to make the ru le absolute, and or pass any such order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper so as to grant adequate relief to the petitioner. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that pursuant to the adv ertisement dated 12 December 2008 inviting applications for appointment of halt- contractors at Nagaon Railway Station he submitted application and though was ev entually appointed as such by the order dated 18 May 2009, the Divisional Manage r, Lumding, under some political pressure, has cancelled such order, thereby cau sing immense loss to petitioner. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the re spondent authorities be directed to pay a sum of Rs.10 lakh as compensation towa rds the past & future loss, mental agony, harassment and loss of valuable time. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner ha s not challenged the orders dated 17 February 2010 and 15 March 2010 whereby the appointment of petitioner as halt-contractor has been cancelled. It has also be en submitted that though in the order names of some political persons are mentio ned, the said decision was taken on administrative exigency as is reflected ther ein. It has further been submitted that the petitioner, in the present petition, has prayed for compensation towards the loss of his business, etc and unless he establishes such loss in a Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter, he is not entitled to any compensation that too in a writ proceeding. It appears that the petitioner was appointed as a halt-contractor vide o rder dated 18 May 2009 in respect of Nagaon railway station. His appointment was cancelled by order dated 17 February 2010, which was reiterated in communicatio n dated 15 March 2010. The petitioner has chosen not to challenge the orders dat ed 17 February 2010 and 15 March 2010. In fact, he has stated that he is not wil ling to work as a halt-contractor because of the apprehension that damage may be caused. The petitioner, however, prayed for payment of a sum of Rs.10 lakhs as compensation on ground that he suffered huge loss because of cancellation of the order of appointment, for mental agony, harassment etc. Whether the petitioner has suffered any loss and he is entitled to any compensation for mental agony, h arassment, etc and the extent thereof are the matters which require determinatio n after due examination of evidence. This exercise cannot conveniently be done i n a writ proceeding, for which petitioner has to approach appropriate Civil Cour t having jurisdiction over the matter. That being the position, the relief claimed in the present writ petition cannot be granted. However, the petitioner may approach the appropriate Civil C ourt having jurisdiction over the matter claiming compensation, if so advised. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.