( 1 ) THIS Rule is directed against an order made by the learned Sub-divisional Magistrate, Sadar (North) Midnapore Under Section. 138 of the Indian Railways Act. The petitioner was a tea-stall contractor at Kolaghat Railway Station. By a notice dated the 9th March, 1955, the Railway administration purported to terminate the contract between the parties and asked the petitioner by that notice to quit the stall in question on the 7th July, 1955. The petitioner refused to obey the notice, whereupon the Railway administration moved the Sub-divisional Magistrate for an order under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act.

( 2 ) TWO points have been urged before us. The first point is that the notice to quit Under Section 138 should be given only after a valid discharge of the Railway servant concerned. According to the petitioner, there was no valid termination of his contract. In our view, the question of the validity of the discharge is beside the point. If the petitioner felt that the contract between the parties had been wrongfully terminated or discharged, he had a remedy in a civil court. The remedy Under Section 138 of the Indian Railways Act is not dependent up