JVS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 15631 OF 2025 Peyush Traders } Petitioner versus Union of India & Ors. } Respondents Mr. C. K. Tripathi, Advocate for the Petitioner.

Mr. T. J. Pandian, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM: SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, CJ. &

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

DATE: 26^th NOVEMBER 2025 Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ :

Aggrieved by the order of debarment contained in the letter dated 5^th November 2025, the petitioner-Firm has approached this Court.

2. The petitioner-Firm states that it was awarded the work under e-Tender Notice No. GEM/2024/B/4824252 for providing AC Coach attendants with linen distribution in trains at Pune Division, vide contract agreement dated 21^st August 2024 for two years commencing from 28^th August 2024 to 27^th August 2026. In compliance of the tender conditions, the petitioner-Firm furnished bank guarantees dated 13^th November 2024 for Rs.74,11,600/-. The petitioner-Firm gives details of the attendants provided by it in connection to performance of the work under the contract in paragraph no.9 of the writ petition which is reproduced as under: -

“9. The Petitioner states that as on the date contract was awarded to the Petitioner, there was in existence railway board's guidelines as regards provision of only 1 AC Coach attendant per workstation (Normally One workstation=2 AC Coaches) to maintain social distance norms on account of pandemic Covid 19 Pandemic guideline, due to this huge numbers of passenger complaints were being received on Rail Madat portal for delay in providing of Linen and Penalty was imposed upon the Petitioner, even after closer of complaint on Rail Madat portal. In that regard, Petitioner facing the problem, had addressed letter Dt: 16.01.2025 to the respondent No. 4 thereby informing respondent No. 4 that it was difficult for Petitioner to manage 1 attendant for 2 AC coaches as even after railway board's guideline to deploy 1 Attendant in 1 AC Coach, respondent No.4 had invited the tenders for providing 1 AC attendant in 2 AC coaches. The Petitioner also informed the respondent No. 4 in other division of Central Railway viz Solapur, Nagpur, there was provision of only 1 AC attendant to 1 AC Coach, and to expect Petitioner to deploy 1 AC attendant to 2 AC Coaches was discriminatory and arbitrary as with such an arrangement the AC Coach attendant of the petitioner was finding it difficult to manage 2 AC coaches. As a result there were being filed complaints by passengers on Rail Madat Portal against attendant and for that penalty was being imposed upon the Petitioner, compelling the Petitioner to deduct such penalty from the salary of the attendant inviting risk of attendant's abandoning the work due to deduction in salary. This was not limited only to the imposition of penalty upon the attendant and petitioner but even after payment of penalty, and closure of complaints on Railway Madat Portal, respondent No. 4 was still imposing penalty upon closed complaints. As such Petitioner requested respondent No. 4 vide letter Dt: 16.01.2025 to foreclose the contract from 01.02.2025 in respect of the LOA issued to them this is followed by further letter Dt:20.01.2025 by the Petitioner to respondent No. 4. The Copy of Letter Dt: 16.01.2025 and 20.01.2025. annexed hereto and marked Exhibit "D"colly

3. The petitioner-Firm further states that vide letter dated 16^th January 2025, it made a request for foreclosure of the contract from 1^st February 2025 but its request was not acceded to whereupon he wrote several letters including the letter dated 20^th January 2025. On 17^th April 2025, the petitioner-Firm received a letter regarding failure to maintain the linen distribution for trains and to provide AC coach attendants. In reply thereto, the petitioner-Firm submitted its response through the letter dated 30^th October 2025 offering an explanation that it was facing the problem of managing two AC coaches with one AC coach attendant and