IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION NO. 37832 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

SHRI V SRINIVAS REDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

PROPRIETOR OF M/S LEOTECH PROCESS

PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM

OFFICE AT NO.10-26

RAMALAYAM STREET, ENIKEPADU

VIJAYAWADA - 520008

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI.S. VASU DEVA NAIDU S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE UNION OF INDIA

REPRESENTED BY GENERAL MANAGER,

SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD

HUBBALLI- 560020

Digitally signed

by SHWETHA

RAGHAVEND RA 2. THE SR. DIVISIONAL MECHANICAL ENGINEER,

Location: HIGH BANGALORE DIVISION,

COURT OF

KARNATAKA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,

BENGALURU-560023

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. A. CHANDRACHOOD., CGC)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227

OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED TERMINATION NOTICE DATED 06.12.2025, BEARING NO.B/M.271/CONT/LINEN/

WASHING/SBC, ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. I.A.No.1/25 is allowed. The production of certified copy of Annexure-A is dispensed with.

2. Sri.A.Chandrachood, counsel accepts notice for respondents no.1 and 2.

3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. To issue a writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned termination notice dated 06.12.2025, bearing No. B/M.271/Cont/Linen/Washing/SBC, issued by the 2^nd respondent as per Annexure-A.

b. To issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to quash the impugned notice inviting tender if any in respect of the subject contract work in the same form or any other form by the respondents.

c. To grant such other order or further relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper including the costs of these proceedings to the petitioners.

4. Essentially what is being sought for is for passing a termination notice, terminating the letter of intent which has been issued in favour of the petitioner.

5. On enquiry as to whether the tender documents had an arbitration clause, learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there is an arbitration clause present in the said tender notification. If that be so, it would be for the petitioner to initiate such proceedings as are permissible under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and the present writ petition in the face of existence of arbitration clause is not maintainable. Reserving such liberty, petition stands dismissed.

SD/-

(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

JUDGE PRS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37