K.A. Swami, CJ.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20th November, 1996 passed by the learned single Judge dismissing Writ Petition No. 16980 of 1996 in which the petitioner sought for quashing the communication dated 17. 1996, bearing No.J/W- 148/2382/1 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager (Works) Palakkad. The said communication reads thus:-

The work PGD/W Sec. Deen Screening and making up deficiency of ballast from Km. 560/6 to 564/1 on D/L including making up deficiency in points and classings @ PLL LDY & OTP was entrusted to the above firm (Contractors) as per Agt.No.J/505 of 212. 1994. Since they have failed to fulfil the contractual obligation and to complete the work, the Agreement has been terminated at his "Risk and cost" as per Clause 62 of G.C.C. Pending assessment of the extra cost that is likely to be incurred by the Railway in getting the balance work executed through agency you are requested to withhold any payment due to the said firm (Contractors) until further advice from this office. A NIL reply may please be sent if no contract exists with the above firm/contractor.

2. The learned single Judge has taken the view that as the matte