IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.311 of 2026 Dated: 16.03.2026 Between:

Argou Technologies Private Limited …Appellant and Divisional Railway Manager, Office: Sanchalan Bhavan, Secunderabad Division, South Central Railway, Secunderabad, Telangana – 500 025, and 3 others.

…Respondents JUDGMENT:

Learned counsel Ms. Vladimeer Khatoon appears for the appellant.

Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appears for the respondents.

2. The present writ appeal arises out of the order dated 24.02.2026 passed by the learned writ court dismissing W.P.No.32541 of 2025 preferred by the appellant.

3. W.P.No.32541 of 2025 was preferred seeking the following relief:

“Hence, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3^rd Respondent issued Termination Order dated 16.10.2025 is illegal, highly unwarranted, highly arbitrary, unfair, unjust, irrational, unlawful and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4. By the impugned order, the learned writ court dismissed the writ petition, the operative portion of which reads as under:

“7. The plea of financial hardship, though noted, cannot override public safety and contractual discipline. Railway Administration handles lakhs of passengers daily and cannot adopt a lenient approach in matters involving safety violations. Petitioner also failed to exhaust the alternative dispute resolution mechanism provided under Clause 22 of the Indian Railway Standard General Conditions of Contract. In view of the admitted facts, contractual provisions, enquiry findings and statutory obligations under the Railways Act, 1989 and the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, this Court finds no illegality, arbitrariness or constitutional infirmity in the termination order dated 16.10.2025. The writ petition is devoid of merit.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. No costs.

9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed.”

5. The termination order dated 16.10.2025 which was impugned in the writ petition was passed alleging violation of Clause 18.1 of the ‘Standard Conditions of Contract’ for the Contracts awarded through e-Auction (hereinafter referred to as, “the Standard Conditions of Contract”). Clause 16 of the Standard Conditions of Contract deals with appeal provision and it reads as under:

“16. Appeal against punitive action of EMD/SD forfeiture/termination of contract on any grounds:

16.1 In cases of forfeiture of EMD/SD and/or termination of the contract as per any of the terms & conditions of e-Auction/contract/Agreement, or otherwise, the contractor, if desires so, may prefer an appeal to the DRM (for contracts finalized by Division) or the concerned PHOD/CHOD (for the contracts finalised by the Zonal headquarters) within 30 days of the action of forfeiture/termination.”

6. Clause 22 of the Standard Conditions of Contract deals with dispute resolution and arbitration, which reads as under:

“22. Dispute resolution and arbitration:

22.1 As per the provisions of Indian Railways Standard ‘General Conditions of Contract’ for Works Contract – issued by Engineering Department in April 2022.”

7. Therefore, after some arguments, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal with liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy.

8. In view of the aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the appellant to avail the alternative remedy in accordance with law. There shall be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.

______________________________