IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA (CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION)

APPELLATE SIDE Present :

The Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee WPA 8641 of 2024 Mohammed Sabir Vs.

Union of India & Ors.

For the petitioner : Mr. Milan Chandra Bhattacharjee, Ld. Sr. Adv, Ms. Sulagna Bhattacharya.

For the UOI : Mr. Soumik Nandi, Ld. Sr. Adv., Mr. Pradyut Saha.

Heard on : 20.05.2025 Judgment on : 24.06.2025 Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.:-

Preface:

1. The present writ petition challenges the legality of the order of termination dated 06.06.2023 issued by the Railway Authority, which pertains to the contract entered into with the petitioner. The petition also questions the consequent forfeiture of the security deposit, the issuance of a new work order dated 22.06.2023, and the publication of a fresh e-auction notice dated 18.08.2023 inviting quotations from interested traders. Additionally, the petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue and complete the remaining scheduled trips under the terms and conditions of the original contract relating to the parcel service on Train No. 12311 Netaji Express (Ex-HWH to KLK, SLR).

Petitioner’s Case:

2. Sans unnecessary details, the necessitous facts, as unfurled in the writ petition, that need to be adumbrated are as follows:

i) An e-auction was floated by the Eastern Railway authorities, Howrah Division, on 06.06.2023 for the allotment of parcel space in SLR-F1 of Train No. 12311, Netaji Express (Ex-Howrah to Kalka), at the rate of Rs. 42,300/- per 4 MT for 7 days a week, for a period of two years commencing from 22nd June 2023 to

21st June 2025, covering a total of 731 trips.

ii) The petitioner, having recently ventured into the field of railway-based trading and having emerged as the successful bidder, was allotted the parcel space, and a formal contract was executed on the same date. The lease was governed by both the Special Conditions and the Standard Conditions of Contract, as stipulated in the bid documents.

iii) On 11.08.2023, during a scheduled trip en route to Kalka, which was the 52nd of 731 scheduled trips, the Railway authorities allegedly detected an overweight consignment measuring 4,344 kg, purportedly identified at Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Railway Station amid heavy rainfall. The goods, comprising garments and flowers, which were perishable in nature, were unloaded and weighed. The petitioner’s representative promptly visited the station on 12.08.2023 and deposited the penalty amount.

iv) However, on 17.08.2023, the petitioner was served with an order indicating that, for the alleged overweight consignment, a penalty of Rs. 1,29,371 was imposed. In addition, the contract was terminated and the security deposit of Rs. 7,71,975/- was forfeited. On the same date, a fresh e-auction was also floated for allotment of the parcel space to a third party. These actions compelled the petitioner to file the present writ petition.

3. The petitioner challenged the legality and fairness of the impugned actions on multiple grounds. It was alleged that the goods were not weighed in the presence of the petitioner, rendering the claim of overweight detection arbitrary and baseless. Furthermore, the petitioner was neither given prior notice nor afforded an opportunity to respond or present a defence before the alleged weighment was conducted. This is particularly significant given that, in accordance with Clause 27.8, the Railway authorities were obligated to make a bona fide effort to conduct the weighment in the presence of the concerned leaseholder. The failure to adhere to this requirement constitutes a clear violation of the principles of natural justice.

4. According to the petitioner, although the Railway authorities terminated the contract and forfeit the security deposit referring to clause 28.3 and Clause

17.3 of the terms and conditions of the contract, these two clauses did not exist in the Special Conditions and Standard Conditions of the Contract.

5. Clause 14.3 of the