IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5112 of 2009 M/S HOLDWELL COMPONENTS PVT.LTD Versus THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY,HAJIPUR with CWJC No.5166 of 2009 M/S HOLDWELL COMPONENTS PVT.LTD Versus THE EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY,HAJIPUR ----------- For the petitioner: M/s. A.K.Singh, Dinesh Kumar & Manisha Singh, Advocates For the Respondent: Mr. Madhu Prasun, Advocate. ---------- 4 11.1.2010 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In both the writ applications failure on the part of the petitioner to perform the contract awarded to him in terms of annexure-1 led to cancellation of the contract on risk and cost basis as per annexure-2. A demand as well for certain sum of money for loss suffered by railway was also issued. Annexure-2 is under challenge coupled with annexure-3 which is a follow up action. Submission of learned counsel is that earlier when the contract was awarded certain set of terms and conditions of general terms of contract was in operation. The petitioner had accepted the contract on the said basis. But subsequently based on subsequent amendment brought about by the Railway Board 10% is being sought to be recovered of the contract value instead of cancellation of the contract on the risk and cost basis. The submission is that the amendment would be prospective in nature, cannot relate back, coupled with the fact that the petitioner was never given opportunity to show cause before actual termination - 2 - of contract. If that was done the petitioner may have had occasion to explain himself on the issue. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent Railway. They have taken a stand that no action was taken to award the contract afresh on risk and cost basis against the firm. Only the demand was raised on the basis of changed general terms and conditions. There is no denial that the petitioner was not asked to show cause before the impugned order contained in annexure-2 came to be passed. There are certain issues which are debatable and arguable. But if any step is taken by the respondent which has civil consequence for the petitioner, it goes without saying that the petitioner has a right of being heard in this regard. Since there is failure on this count the petitioner has made out a case for interference. In view of above the two impugned orders contained in annexure-2 and 3 are hereby quashed. The matter is relegated back to the respondents to issue show cause, hear him and then decide the matter. This writ application stands allowed to the extent indicated above. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi,J.)