WP(C) 4270/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, Railway appearing for the respondent. The petitioner by the present petition has challenged the NIT dated 28th July, 2 011 issued by the Senior Divisional Manager, NF Railway, Lumding for advertiseme nt in Guwahati Railway Station. The ground on which the said NIT has been challe nged is that though pursuant to the earlier NIT issued, such work, was allotted in favour of the petitioner, the display boards were removed by the Railway auth ority during the continuance of the contractual period, as a result of which, th e petitioner though suffered heavy loss for which they represented before the re spondent authority for payment of such damages, the same has not been paid and i nstead the fresh NIT dated 28th July, 2011 has been issued. Mr. Roy Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the pet itioner has suffered the loss to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakh) fo r the illegal action on the part of the respondent authorities, unless such loss is made good, the authority cannot proceed with the NIT dated 28th July, 2011 f or settlement of the contract, which was earlier awarded to the petitioner. Mr. Sarkar, learned Standing Counsel, Railway, on the other hand, has submitted that the impugned NIT dated 28th July, 2011 has been issued after cancellation o f the contract with the petitioner and if such cancellation is illegal and the p etitioner is entitled to any damages, he has to approach the Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter, as it requires determination of fact. It has also been submitted that the ground on which the writ petition has been filed cannot be the ground for interfering with the impugned NIT dated 28th July, 2011. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel appea ring for the parties as well as the averments made in the writ petition, I am of the view that on the aforesaid ground the NIT cannot be interfered with as, if the petitioner is entitled to any amount as damages, he has to approach the appr opriate Civil Court having jurisdiction over the matter. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the pet itioner to approach the appropriate Civil Court having jurisdiction over the mat ter. No costs.