The main legal point established in the judgment is that the termination of a contract can be justified based on the terms of the agreement and the party's failure to maintain performance levels. Additionally, the application of Article 14 of the Constitution to contractual matters was emphasized.

1. The writ petition as well as an interim application made therein are taken up for final hearing.

2. Learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner was granted a contract for catering services at the Sealdah - New Delhi Rajdhani Express by virtue of a master license agreement dated June 23, 2014. The petitioner was discharging its obligations under such agreement. Over a period of time, there were several complaints against the petitioner with regard to the quality of the food served at such train. At every complain, the petitioner had accepted the allegation. The authorities had imposed fines upon the petitioner. The petitioner has paid such fines. The petitioner had done so in order to avoid controversies to the extent possible. He submits that, consequently, breach if any of the contract stood remedied by the payment of such penalty. He refers to an incident occurring on March 27, 2017 and submits that, a section of the passengers in Coaches B-8 and B-9 of Sealdah bound Rajdhani Express are took exception to the dinner served. The Pantry Manager and the Train Manager upon receipt of complaints from such passengers had looked into the issue and did not find any wrong doings on the part of the petitioner. In support of such contention, he refers to the contemporaneous writings of such officials. The petitioner was served with a show-cause notice dated March 17, 2017 with regard to such incident. The petitioner had replied thereto. He submits that, the Railway authorities are acting with a closed mind with regard to the show-cause notice. The Railway authorities are determined to cancel the contract without any basis. Such decision, according to him, will appear from the statement made by the Hon’ble Minister of Railway in Parliament on March 29, 2017. In support of such contention he refers to a video clip of the statement of the Minister for Railway made in Parliament. He submits that, when the Hon’ble Railway Minister has taken a decision on termination of the contract, the decision on the show-cause notice and the reply thereto are foregone conclusions. In fact, during the pendency of the writ petition on April 6, 2017, the petitioner was served with a purported letter of termination at 9P.M. The petitioner has challenged the same in the interim application.

3. Referring to 2006 Volume 12 Supreme Court Cases page 33 (Siemens Limited v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.), 2010 Volume 13 Supreme Court Cases page 427 (Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.), learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that, when the authorities are acting with a closed mind, then the entire show-cause notice as also the subsequent proceedings stand vitiated. A direction for a decision on the show-cause notice in the facts of the present case would be an idle formality as the Hon’ble Railway Minister has already made up his mind. He relies upon 1914 India Law Reports 41 Cal page 436 (Israil v. Shamser Rahman) and submits that, the Court can direct restoration of status quo ante, if need be. Referring to 2012 Volume 10 Supreme Court Cases page 1 (Natural Resources Allocation, In Re, Special Reference No. 1 of 2012) he submits that, Article 14 of the Constitution applies to contractual matters, and if the action of the Article 12 authority fails the test of reasonableness, the same should be struck down.

4. Referring to the master license agreement dated June 23, 2014 learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner submits that, the existence of an arbitration clause in such agreement ipso facto does not oust the jurisdiction of a Writ Court. Moreover, referring to Articles 18.4 and 19.5 of the master license agreement, he submits that, the Railway authorities, not having issued a notice for six months is not entitled to terminate the contract. In such circumstances he submits that, the impugned show-cause notice as also the letter of termination dated April 6, 2017 should be quashed.

5. Learned Addi