Judgment :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ application challenging the impugned order issued by the Chief Commercial Manager /FM of the Eastern Railway dated 29th October, 2025 by terminating the contract awarded to the petitioners with immediate effect, consequently, Security Deposit was also forfeited and it was also ordered for initiation of recovery proceedings of the outstanding dues.

2. The respondent authorities have floated an e-tender inviting bids from eligible bidders for “Provision of Advertisement in EMU Trains and provisions of concierge service together with advertisement in Mail/ Express and Premium Trains operated with rakes whose primary maintenance is done by Eastern Railway, on license basis”. The petitioner no. 1 has participated in the said tender process and found eligible and awarded with a Work Order on 17th May, 2023.

3. Subsequent to issuance of work order, a bid agreement was executed between the parties on 6th September, 2023. The tenure of the said agreement was for a period of five years from 17th July, 2023 till 16th July, 2028.

4. Mr. Debnath Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners submits that upon execution of the agreement, the petitioners have taken necessary steps for commencement of their work but the railway authorities have failed to perform their contractual obligations by providing and preparing a schedule for execution of display of advertisement materials during their lying over period a rake at car shed/ siding. He submits that only after discharge of such initial obligation on the part of railways the reciprocal obligation on the part of the petitioners could have commenced.

5. Mr. Ghosh submits that as per agreement, the railway divisions must ensure to plan in such a manner that display work can be completed by the licensee within sixty days from receipt of the work order but such contractual obligation was never discharged by the concern railway divisions. He submits that the petitioners have made several representations to the railway authorities highlighting the petitioners’ inability to comply with professional commitments due to non- availability of required rakes.

6. Mr. Ghosh submits that all of a sudden on 13th May, 2025, the railway authorities issued a demand notice to the petitioners claiming an amount of Rs. 4,98,53,942/- which includes liquidated damages for 2nd quarter of 2nd year and 3rd quarter of 2nd year along with the license fee of 4th quarter of 2nd year. On receipt of the said demand notice, the petitioners have made comprehensive representation on 19th May, 2025 for adjustment of license fee as per Clause C5 of the work order and Clause 3.2.4 and sub-clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the license agreement dated 6th September, 2023. As the railway authority failed to consider the request of the petitioners, the petitioners have filed a writ petition before this Court being WPA No. 11491 of 2025 challenging the impugned notice. The Coordinate Bench of this Court disposed of the writ application directing the respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioners within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order.

7. Mr. Ghosh submits that the in terms of the order passed by this Court, the railway authority fixed the matter for hearing on 26th June, 2025 and the petitioners have participated in the said hearing and also filed detailed representation. He submits that without considering the grievances of the petitioners, the railway authority has passed an order on 26th August, 2025, rejecting the claims of the petitioners.

8. Mr. Ghosh submits that on 3rd September, 2025, the petitioners again received a demand notice from the railway authorities claiming an amount of Rs. 9,69,90,228/-. After receipt of the said demand notice, the petitioners have filed an arbitration application before this Court being AP No. 169 of 2025 praying for interim order restraining the respondents from taking any action for ter