DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner assails a show cause notice dated March 28, 2017 issued by the railway authorities.
(2.) The petitioner had obtained leave in the morning to move an application in the present writ petition challenging the termination notice issued subsequent to the filing of the writ petition. Such leave was granted. The application is taken up for hearing as an unlisted application, along with the writ petition, by consent of the parties.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner enjoys a catering contract in respect of Sealdah New Delhi Rajdhani Express by virtue of a Master license agreement dated June 23, 2014. The first petitioner was discharging its obligation under such contract satisfactorily. The railway authorities claim to have received 138 complaints up to the period March 26, 2017 as against the petitioner in respect of such contract. The railway authorities had imposed fines in respect of such complaints. The petitioner had paid such fines. He refers to an incident of March 27, 2017 and submits that, allegedly a section of the passengers in coaches B8 and B9 were served with a dinner which was claimed to be spoiled. He submits that, immediately on receipt of such complaints, the Pantry Car Manager and the Train Manager had attended to such complaints. The Pantry Manager did not find anything untoward with the dinner. The Train Manager was of the same view as that of the Pantry Manager. He refers to the writing of these persons as annexed to the Writ Petition. He submits that, Hon'ble Minister for Railways had made a statement in Parliament in answer to a written question during question hours. He plays the video clip of the answer of the Hon'ble Minister as given in the Parliament. He submits that, the Railway Authorities had taken a decision to terminate the contract on March 29, 2017 when the Hon'ble Railway Minister had made such statement in Parliament. The petitioner, thereafter, had received the impugned show-cause notice dated March 28, 2017. The petitioner has, however, replied to the show-cause notice. Such reply does not mean that, the petitioner has waived the contention that, the Railway Authorities had acted with a closed mind in issuing the show cause notice. With the Hon'ble Railway Minister making such statement in Parliament, it is inconceivable that, the Railway Authorities would be in a position to take a decision other than that of termination of contract. In fact, he submits that during the pendency of the Writ Petition the apprehension expressed by his client have come true. The petitioner had received a letter of termination dated April 6, 2017 by electronic mail at about 9 p.m. yesterday. He submits, therefore, the fact that, the Railway Authorities are acting with a closed mind stand established. He relies upon (2010) 13 Supreme Court Cases 427 (Oryx Fisheries Private limited Vs. Union of India & Ors.) and submits that, when the authorities are acting with the closed mind, the ritual of hearing is an idle formality. Since in such case the Supreme Court had quashed the show-cause notice and the decision of termination, he submits that, the Court should quash the show-cause notice and the decision of termination in the present case also. He submits that, it is one thing to quash the show-cause notice and the other is not to direct adjudication upon the complaints of the incidents happening on March 27, 2017. He submits that, the authorities are at liberty to issue fresh show-cause notice with regard to such incidents if it chooses to.;