IMPORTANT POINT
The power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature, and the court has the discretion to entertain a writ application in spite of an alternative remedy being available.

JUDGMENT :

APURBA SINHA RAY, J.

1. By a common judgment dated 24.06.2022 the Learned Single Judge has disposed of four Writ Petitions being WPA 7505 of 2022 With WPA 7509 of 2022 With WPA 7511 of 2022 With WPA 7514 of 2022). Two appeals filed against the said judgment are also being disposed of by the instant common judgment.

2. (Re: Hospital Road Lake, Petrol Pump Lake and Office Road Lake)

a) The writ petitioners have entered into an agreement with Chittaranjan Locomotive Works (CLW in short) for performance of the works of “cleaning and fishing rights of the hospital road lake, petrol pump lake and office road lake” vide agreement being No. CE/B/17/2019-2020 dated 27.08.2019 for a period of three years with a provision for extension of licence period for one or two years more, on payment of licence fees. Due to intervention of the Covid-19 Pandemic, the writ petitioner’s business had suffered losses and for which requests were made from the side of the writ petitioners to the respondent for reducing license fees or to extend the payment schedule but the respondent railway authorities did not pay any heed to such requests of the writ petitioners, though the said authorities granted various benefits of welfare waiver scheme to some business houses who were similarly situated with the writ petitioners. It is also alleged that as per the agreement being No. CE/B/17/2019-2020 dated 27.08.2019 entered between the writ petitioners and the respondents and also as per the letter of acceptance dated 26.02.2019, initial period of license was stated to be three years, with a provision for extension of the contract for a further period of one or two years as per clause 40 the Special Specification and Special Conditions of Contract. It is also the case of the writ petitioners that there was no impediment anywhere in the said agreement that such provision for extension of the contract period will depend upon any concurrence of the respondent authorities. Respondent authorities have no unilateral power to refuse or deny the extension of tender period in favour of the writ petitioners. As the respondent railway authorities did not extend the period of license as per the said agreement, and as the respondent authorities floated fresh tender, the writ petitioners moved this Court in its writ jurisdiction, and the present appellant and other respondents in the writ petition raised objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ application. According to the appellants/respondents in the writ petition, clause no. 63 of Indian Railways Standard General Conditions of Contract provides for arbitration for settlement of disputes arising out of or in connection with the contract, but the same has not been availed of by the writ petitioners and further the dispute between the private parties and the State has arisen out of a commercial contract and as such there was no element of public law for invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

b) After hearing the learned counsel of the parties, the Learned Single Judge has upheld the point of maintainability of the writ petition on the basis of several judicial decisions. The Learned Single Judge has specifically stated that the writ petitions are held to be maintainable and with regard to the merits, the matter needs to be heard upon exchange of affidavits.

3. The learned Counsel for the appellant in MAT 1200/2022, Mr. Sandip Kumar Bhattacharyya has challenged the above impugned judgment on several grounds:

First, the Hon'ble Single Judge merely referred to the principles of law, without coming to any findings that the Appellants herein had acted arbitrarily.

Secondly, the entire issue could have been decided on the undisputed documentary evidences forming part of the writ petition.

Thirdly, the appellants laid emphasis on the issue of "eo nominee", meaning that whenever an issue of malice / mala-fide/arbitrariness is claimed, one has to name the persons involved personally and not merely