BHUSHAN KRISHNA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties, the matter has been heard for final disposal at this stage.

(2.) In the writ petition, prayer is to quash the order dated 27.8.98, terminating the appointment of the petitioner as Contractor of Railey English Halts contained in Annexure-4, issued for Divisional Railway Manager, Danapur (Respondent No. 3).

(3.) In short, the relevant facts are that in response to the advertisement for appointment of Contractor for sale of tickets at Kilometres 474-475 at Railey English Halt proposed to be opened between Pandarak and Barh stations of Danapur Division. Petitioner submitted his application on 30th may, 1997 and after accepting his candidature, he was informed on behalf of Respondent No. 3 vide Annexure-2 dated 7.4.98 requiring him to deposit Rs. 500.00 as security money for the proposed Halt Contractor with the Divisional Cashier, Eastern Railway, Danapur immediately and produce money receipt in the office of Respondent No. 3 for execution of the agreement, It is claimed by the petitioner that on 19.5.98, he deposited the said security money vide receipt, petitioner received the impugned order of cancellation on the pretext that he had indulged in two criminal cases--one bearing Criminal Case No. 52/95 at Pandarak Police Station and Case No. 273/92 at Barh Police Station. Accordingly, it was stated that the Railway administration deserve the right to terminate the appointment of Halt Contractor. Thus, the appointment letter dated 7.4.98 stands cancelled. According to the petitioner, he is not accused in either of the two said cases. In one case his father although under some enmity has been made accused and the other has been filed against unknown which has been finalized. Accordingly, the petitioner gave legal notice to Respondent No. 3 on 11.9.98, but on getting no response, he filed the present writ petition.