Contractual termination notice must be issued by the authorized Railway Administration, adhering to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANIRUDDHA ROY, J.

Upon urgency being pleaded on mentioning and since the regular determination has been assigned to this Court, this writ petition has been taken up for consideration by publishing in the daily cause list.

2. Affidavit-of-service, filed in Court today, is taken on record.

3. Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate appears for the petitioner.

4. Mr. Sanajit Kr. Ghosh, learned Advocate appears for the respondents/Railway.

5. The petitioner is engaged in transportation business. Pursuant to an e-Auction held by the South Eastern Railway (for short the Railway) for leasing of 23 tonnes parcel vans in VPH-1 on round trip basis by Train No.18030-18029, Howrah – Mumbai Express for a period of two years, the petitioner participated and selected as the successful tenderer.

6. An e-Auction agreement was formally executed by and between the petitioner and the Railway on July 31, 2024, Annexure - P1, at page 31 to the writ petition. The petitioner has deposited the earnest money in terms of the contract. The petitioner has been operating the said VPH. On July 15, 2025, Annexure – P2, at page 34 to the writ petition, a termination notice of thirty days has been served upon the petitioner by the Assistant Commercial Manager. The author of the letter is the Assistant Commercial Manager who has signed for the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur as it appears from the said termination notice. The said termination notice was issued by invoking Clause 28.2 of FMC11 of 2022 and Clause 17.2 of the Standard Condition of Contract.

7. Clause 28.2 of FMC11 of 2022 at page 46 to the writ petition specifies that, by Railway Administration, Railway shall have the right to terminate the contract/Agreement for any reason whatsoever after serving 30 days’ notice to the lease holder.

8. Clause 17.2 of the Standard Condition of Contract at page 68 to the writ petition specifies by Railway Administration, Railway shall have the right to terminate the contract/Agreement without any financial repercussion on either side for any reason whatsoever after serving one month’s notice to the contractor.

9. Clause 16 of the said FMC11 of 2022 at page 67 to the writ petition, inter alia, provides the provision for appeal against punitive action of EMD/SD forfeiture/termination of the contract on any ground.

10. Exercising the said right of appeal the petitioner has submitted an appeal petition dated July 18, 2025 Annexure - P5, at page 76 to the writ petition.

11. Clause 16.1 of the said FMC11 of 2022 at page 67 to the writ petition provides that the appeal should lie before the DRM (for contract finalized by Division).

12. The appeal was taken up for consideration and ultimately was rejected by the impugned order dated July 23, 2025, Annexure-P6, at page 79 to the writ petition by the Assistant Commercial Manager, though the document shows that the Assistant Commercial Manager has signed for Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Kharagpur.

13. On these facts, Mr. Arabinda Chatterjee, learned Senior Advocate submits that, the relevant clauses 28.2 and 17.2, as referred to above, clearly show that, the termination notice must be issued by the Railway Administration.

14. The expression ‘Railway Administration’ has been clearly defined under Sub-Section 32 to Section 2 of the Railways Act, 1989 (for short the said Act). Railway Administration means for a Government Railway, General Manager of a Zonal Railway whereas, the impugned termination notice dated July 15, 2025 shows it was signed and authored by the Assistant Commercial Manager. The letter never spelt out that the termination notice was issued pursuant to the delegated authority delegated by the General Manager of the Zonal Railway.

15. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Chatterejee referring to the impugned appellate order dated July 23, 2025 submits that, the said order was also issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager and not by the DRM who was the appellate authority before whom the