- (1.) THE Court : After going through the order dated November 23, 2010 made in W.P.No.22212(W) of 2010 (Asraful Haque v. THE Union of India & Ors.), Mr Banerjee, counsel for the respondents, has invited me to make an order setting aside the tender process questioned in this petition and permitting the railway administration to decide whether the petitioner is entitled to work as a halt contractor for an indefinite period.
(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that since the agreement under which he was appointed entitled him to work as a halt contractor for an indefinite period, without first terminating his appointment according to law, the respondents cannot initiate any process for appointing another halt contractor for the same place. After hearing counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to accept Mr Banerjees suggestion. It seems to me that it will be appropriate to direct the General Manager of Eastern Railway within whose jurisdiction the petitioner has been working as a halt contractor to decide the question whether under the agreement the petitioner is entitled to work as a halt contractor for an indefinite period. For these reasons, I dispose of the art.226 petition ordering as follows. The impugned tender process is hereby quashed. The General Manager of Eastern Railway shall decide the question whether the agreement under which the petitioner was appointed as a halt contractor entitled him to work as such for an indefinite period. The decision shall be given after making necessary enquiry, recording proceedings and hearing all concerned including the petitioner. The petitioner will be at liberty to submit his case in writing. The decision shall be communicated to all at once. No costs. Certified xerox.;