GOLDEN CATERERS Vs. SOUTH EASTERN RAILWAY & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner/appellant is a contractor who had entered into a contract with the South Eastern Railway authorities for supplying food items on a particular train. The contract was for five years. The contract contemplates the deposit of licence fees in advance. The appellant defaulted in paying the licence fee for the second year. From time to time extension of time was granted by the Railway authorities for payment of such licence fee. Finally, the Railway authorities gave the appellant 48 hours time for making good the default. The appellant failed to deposit the licence fee within the extended time period. The Railway authorities terminated the contract with the appellant.

(2.) Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the learned Single Judge by filing W.P. 1296(W) of 2017. The learned Judge noted the above facts of the case and came to a conclusion that the Railway authorities did not act arbitrarily or unreasonably in terminating the contract with the appellant. In spite of having been given repeated opportunity of making good the default in depositing the licence fee, the appellant failed to do so within the time period prescribed. The learned Judge also noted the submission made on behalf of the Railway authorities that there were complaints regarding the quality of the food supplied by the appellant. The learned Judge declined to pass any order in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant and dismissed the writ application.

(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that there was no arbitrary or unreasonable action on the part of the Railway authorities. The appellant failed to pay the licence fee for the second year within the time stipulated or even within the extended time period. Sufficient opportunity was given to the appellant to make good the default. However, the appellant could not do so. The contract was terminated in terms of the appropriate clause contained in the contract and we do not find anything illegal about the same. Hence, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgement and order impugned before us.