IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19160 of 2010 M/S ABSD Electricals Upper Bazar, Mahabir Chowk, Ranchi through its partner Ajay Singh, S/o Sri Ram Janam Singh, R/o Upper Bazar, Mahabir Chowk, Ranchi. ……. Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through the General Manager, E.C. Railway, Hajipur. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, E.C.Railway, Danapur, Khagaul. 3. The Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRD), E.C.Railway, Danapur at Khagaul. 4. The Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRD), E.C. Railway, Danapur. …… Respondents. For the petitioner : Mr. Gautam Bose, Sr. Advocate. Ms. Ratna Das, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar, Advocate. Mr. Nithikant, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. A.K.Keshri, Advocate. ----------- 2. 24.11.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-railways. The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 10.11.2010 by which his contract has been terminated with immediate effect and further reserving the right of the railways to claim damages under Clause 62 of the General Conditions of Contract in addition to any other rights available to it under the law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two show cause notices were issued to the petitioner on 11.10.2010 and 20.10.2010 both of which the petitioner replied immediately giving detailed explanation of the circumstances under which the accidents had taken place and denying any wrong-doing on its own part or on the part of its employees, but without referring to - 2 - the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order has been passed, which shows a complete non-application of mind and in substance a violation of the principle of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that under such circumstances, the show cause notices issued to the petitioner is an eye wash as the Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer had already made up his mind to pass the order. Learned counsel for the railways submits that the explanation of the petitioner was such that it has to be considered as non est in the eye of law and thus there was application of mind while passing the impugned order. This court does not find force in the submission of learned counsel for the railways. Once an order having civil consequences against a person is passed by an authority which is state under Article 12 of the Constitution, even in a contractual matter it is required to comply with the principles of natural justice. In fact show cause notices were issued to the petitioner, which had been duly answered by the petitioner. It was thus obligatory upon the respondent Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer, East Central Railway to consider the reply of the petitioner before passing his order, but it does not appear from the impugned order that he has applied his mind to the explanation submitted by the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the impugned order dated - 3 - 10.11.2010 cannot stand and it is, accordingly, quashed. The writ petition is thus allowed. However, it shall be open to Respondent no. 3 to pass a fresh speaking order in accordance with law after considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. Sujit (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)