The Railway had the legal power to terminate lease contracts, cancel registration, and debar fresh registration for a period of five years based on repeated overloading violations, and a citizen has no fundamental right to insist upon the Government or any other individual for doing business with him.

B. P. Colabawalla, J.

1. By these Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners have challenged the legality and validity of the order dated 28th July, 2015 passed by the Chief Operations Manager (Western Railway), under which the decision of the Divisional Authority cancelling/terminating the lease contracts of the Petitioners, with forfeiture of Security Deposit and cancellation of registration, as punitive measures, was confirmed. The Petitioners are further barred from applying for fresh registration for a period of five years.

2. Since the facts in both these Petitions and the point of law to be considered are more or less the same, both these Petitions are being disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts in Writ Petition (L) No.2322 of 2015 are as follows:-

(a) The Petitioner is engaged in the business of transport of goods/cargo including taking on lease from the Railways Train goods compartments i.e. SLR 4 ton Luggage Rack.

(b) Pursuant to a tender notice, the Petitioner and the Respondents entered into an “Agreement for Leasing of Parcel Space in Brake Van / Parcel Van/ Assistant Guard Cabin” dated 9th December, 2013. This agreement stipulates that w.e.f. 11st December 2013, the Railway administration would provide 04 (MSLR-IV) tonnes parcel space to the Petitioner (leaseholder) in Train No.12925 from BDTS to ASR for a period of three years. There were several other terms and conditions in the said agreement which inter alia provided for overloading and penalty, failure of the leaseholder to fulfill his obligation after having started loading, preparation of manifest, loading of heavy packages in Assistant Guard Cabin etc. Apart from the contract for this Train namely Train No.12925, the Petitioner and the Respondents have entered into agreements/contracts with reference to other Trains as well. It is the case of the Petitioner that he has been loading and unloading goods as per the said agreement and performed all his duties and actions as stipulated in the agreement.

(c) Since the Respondent Authorities found that there was overloading in some of the Trains, by a communication dated 10th January, 2015 the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Mumbai Central, brought the aforesaid facts to the notice of the Petitioner and terminated all the contracts of the Petitioner and cancelled their registration with forfeiture of registration fees, as punitive measures. The Petitioner was further debarred from applying for a fresh registration for a period of 5 years.

(d) Being aggrieved by this decision, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal before the Chief Commercial Manager (Respondent No.2) without any success. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the termination letter dated 10th January, 2015 as well as the order in Appeal dated 18th February, 2015, the Petitioner then approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (L) No.978 of 2015. This Court by its order dated 25th June, 2015 set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remanded the matter back for deciding the Appeal afresh. This was done on the ground that no personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. It was also ordered that since the Chief Commercial Manager is the Appellate Authority who has terminated the contract, any other officer of the same rank would decide the Appeal, after giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner.

(e) Pursuant thereto, the Appellate Authority after giving a personal hearing and examining the matter, gave a reasoned order dated 28th July, 2015 dismissing the Appeal of the Petitioner and upholding the termination of all contracts of the Petitioner. Being aggrieved by this order in Appeal, the Petitioner is before us.

4. The facts in Writ Petition (L) No.2283 of 2015 are as under:-

(a) Here also the Petitioner is the proprietary concern of one Lalit Sharma and is engaged in the business of transport of goods and cargo including taking on lease from the railways Train goods compartments i.e.