Writ under Article 226 not maintainable for contractual termination disputes involving factual questions when arbitration clause exists, natural justice not violated, and no public law issue raised.

JUDGMENT :

HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final disposal.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by a partnership firm, M/s. MVV Satyanarayan, registered at Hyderabad, acting through its authorized signatory (hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner'), against Respondent No.1 – the General Manager, Central Railway; Respondent No.2 – the Chief Administrative Officer (Construction), Central Railway; and Respondent No.3 – the Chief Engineer (Construction)/Central, Chhatrapati Shivaji Maharaj Terminus, Mumbai (hereinafter collectively referred to as 'the respondent railway authorities').

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioner challenges the communication dated 13.11.2025 issued by Respondent No.3, whereby a decision was taken to part terminate the contract/agreement dated 17.08.2024, and further challenges the termination notice dated 02.12.2025, on the grounds that the said actions are arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the principles of natural justice. The petitioner has also prayed for a direction permitting it to complete the balance work as per the petitioner's letter dated 6th December 2025 and for a further direction to the respondents to release the payments for the work executed by the petitioner till date.

4. The factual matrix as pleaded by the petitioner in its memo of petition is as follows. The petitioner is a duly registered partnership firm based at Hyderabad and has been carrying on business since 03.09.1984. The petitioner claims to have been engaged in the field of civil contract works for Indian Railways, both Central and various State Governments and their instrumentalities, for over four and a half decades, with what it describes as an immaculate track record in meeting exact specifications and completing work within targeted timelines. In the process, it is stated that the petitioner has acquired specialized skills in the construction of bridges and other works for Indian Railways.

5. It is the case of the petitioner that Respondent No.2 had invited tenders for the construction of balance minor and major bridges at various places, construction of Road Under Bridges (RUBs) and drain works in connection with the Ahmednagar–Beed–Parli Vaidyanath New Broad Gauge Line Project, by issuing a Tender Notice dated 19.01.2024. The petitioner's tender was accepted by Respondent No.3, who issued a Letter of Acceptance dated 30.04.2024. Thereafter, an agreement came to be executed between Respondent No.2 and the petitioner on 17.08.2024. As per the terms of the Letter of Acceptance, the initial value of the work was Rs.3,74,65,7193/- (Rupees Thirty Seven Crores Forty Six Lakhs Fifty Seven Thousand One Hundred and Ninety Three only). The work was to be completed within twelve calendar months from the date of the Letter of Acceptance, making the completion date on or before 29.04.2025. Upon completion of the work, the petitioner was also obligated to provide a maintenance period of twelve calendar months, including through the monsoon season, under the defect liability clause.

6. The petitioner further st