-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.55 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.55 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.55 OF 2005 Arkom Advertising & Mktg. & anr. .. Petitioners v/s. General Manager Western Railway & ors. .. Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.56 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.56 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.56 OF 2005 Sunil Ramesh Sethi. .. .. Petitioner v/s. General Manager Western Railway & ors. .. .. Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.57 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.57 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.57 OF 2005 Sunil Ramesh Sethi. .. .. Petitioner v/s. General Manager Western Railway & ors. .. .. Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.58 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.58 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.58 OF 2005 Sunil Ramesh Sethi. .. .. Petitioner v/s. General Manager Western Railway & ors. .. Respondents W I T H WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.59 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.59 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.59 OF 2005 Ramesh Chander Sethi .. Petitioner v/s. General Manager, Wester Railway & ors. .. Respondents W I T H -2- WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.60 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.60 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO.60 OF 2005 Renuka Hemant Champanani. .. Petitioner v/s. General Manager, Western Railway & ors. .. Respondents Mr.Y.K. Sharma for petitioners. Mr.Sureshkumar for respondents. ---- CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & CORAM : H.L. GOKHALE & S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. S.C.DHARMADHKARI, JJ. DATED : 15TH APRIL 2005 DATED : 15TH APRIL 2005 DATED : 15TH APRIL 2005 P.C. : P.C. : P.C. : 1. Heard Mr.Sharma in support of all the above petitions. Mr.Sureshkumar appears for the respondents. 2. The petitioners are making a grievance that their contracts with respect to the various sites on the railway property are being determined though the contracts are very much subsisting. Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing for the respondents states that the railway will continue to honour the contracts for the period for which they are entered into subject, however, to their right to terminate them, if they so deem it fit. The period of contract has been specified in the reply filed by the railway. -3- 3. Mr.Suresh Kumar appearing for the respondents states that if the petitioners point out any prejudice on account of any further sub-contract entered, the respondents may consider as to whether the contract should be extended any further. The remedy for the petitioners in case they are aggrieved, will be to seek compensation. 4. All the above petitions stand disposed of. In view of the disposal of the main petitions, nothing survives in the Chamber Summonses taken out in the petitions and they are disposed of as infructuous. (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (H.L. GOKHALE, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.)