WP/32541/2025 of ARGOU TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED Vs Divisional Railway Manager on 24 February 2026

ORDER:

The case of petitioner, as pleaded, is that pursuant to the e-Auction dated 26.07.2025 issued by the 3''t respondent for provision, operation and management of three battery- operated cars at Secunderabad Raihvay Station. petitioner participated and was declared successful. Consequent thereto, on line Contract Agreement was entered into on 31.O7 .2025 for a period of Iive years commencing from 25.08.2025 and ending on 24.O8.2O3O with an annual licence fee of Rs.33,OO, i 1 1/- and a total contract value of Rs. 1 ,94,70,654.90. It is lurther pleaded that the Earnest Money Deposit rvas paid on 26.07.2025 uide Bank Transactron ID LM918647 57 with IRtrPS Relerence ID- 3109751 and that after commencement of the contract, petitioner appointcd two supervisors and scvet drivers for opcration of the battcry opcrated cars. 1- 1 . It is statccl, pctitioncr admitted that ,r I 19.O9.2O25 an incident ocr:urred at I'latform No.1O whcn the operator Mr. Anand, aftcr dropping passcngers, haltcd tl e vchicle lor collecting cash and thc battery-operated car rollerl back ancl fell onto the track. PeIitioner plcaded that apprehelrl ng danger in the event of arrival of a train, the operator, u'i , the help of persons present or-r the platform, repositioned tlr: vehicle and drove it along the track to the end of thc rlatform ar-rd thereafter, through a ramp to Platforms 6 and l. An enquiry was conducted on 19.09.2025 by the 4tl) Respc,r denl, during which the operator explained the circutnstances. rdmitted that railway officials tvere not informed, assured th: I the incidet-rt would not recur, arnd agreed to be permanently cmoved frorn servicc. Pelitioner's supervisor requestcd that t.l: incident be treatcd as a last u,arning stating that it was a ltr-'1 instance and that thc petitioncr was ncw to thc contra.ct. |-2. Petitioner statcs that thereafter, thc 'l' Respondent issued a temporary suspension order datcd 19.t 9.2025 citit'tg thc safetl, incidcnt ancl anticipatcd heavS, passeng r r rush duritlg Dussehra, Deepavali and Chhath festivals, suspt: Lding all BOC operations frorn 20.O9.2025 to 28.1O.2025. Ft presentations dated 23.O9.2O25 and 06.10.2025 were submitted seeking revocation oI suspension, expressing unconditional apologr, stating that thc incider-rt was accidental, and arssuring implcmentation of corrective measures including clriver training ancl strict monitoring, but the same were not considcrcd. Howcver, without considcring the representations, tl-re 3.1 Rcspondent issued Termination Order dated 16. 10.2025 alleging violation of Clause 18. 1 of the Standard Conditions of Contract, forfeiting the full security deposit of Rs.3,30,O11/ and directing immediate removal of all BOCs and ecluipment.

1.3. Petitioner states that no passenger sustained any inj ury in the incident and that the operator acted only to prevent any untoward occurrence. The contract had commenced only 23 days prior to the incident and was valid for a periocl of live years titt 2O3O, and that a request was made durrng enquiry to trcat the incident as a last warning. According to petitioner, termination caused severe financial hardship as loans u'cre taken to start the busincss, vehicles rvere insured, salaries errc bcing paid to drivers and supervisors despite stoppage of rvork, zrnd the petitioner's family is entirely dependent on the said busincss.

2. In the counter filed on behalf of Respondents, it is stated, the contract for operation and maintenance of three .1 battcry-opcratr:d cars at Sccunderabad Railwav ar,,,ardcd to l)ctltioner [or a pcriod of hve years fro;t to 24.O8.20'',O .rt zlll ett'ltluzrl licensc fce of R" 33'(" Agrcemcnt No MSS SC-SC-BCA-26 23- 1 dated Pursuaut to tllc arvartl o[ thc contract' the licensei: raid the first quartcrlv liccusc fce of Rs 8'25'O2S/- and cornmetrccd operatiotls rvitl'r thrcc battcry-operatcd cars from ! 5 08 2025 It is stated that on \9 (\g 2025 at about 16:45 hourI ' intbrmation wasreccivedbytlrcRailrvayautlroritiesthatab:Ltery-operated car was drivt'tl on the railway tracks at Secundr t ebad Railway itation u'as 25 08.2025 .111/-, vidc

31. o7.2025. Statiott operated ('zl rt was operator Mr. Anand instructions rvcrc

2.1. It is stated that a preliminary repr'; t was soLlght from the Chtcl Comrnercial lnspector' Secunderr rad (CCI/SC)' and as pel 1[ie said report' it rvas conhrmed tt I t the battery- rlriven on the railway tracl: by the BOC . Cor-rside ring thc gravity of tir incident ' oral issucd to the Chief Commc t :ial [nspector' Sccundcraba<l (CCI/SC), to immcdiately ccas: all battcry- operatcd car opcratiot'rs at Secunderabad Railu I 1' Station' and accordingll' all BOC services werc stopped' O I 18 09'2025' a Cautionlraclerlrca<lybecnissuedtothesulervisorolthc licensce rcgarciing safc opcration of BOCs a i the incidcnt occurred otr the very next day' i'e'' 19 O9'2021i an<I in rriew of ) the heary passenger rush anticipated during the ensuing festival season, it was considered necessary as a preventive measure to suspend such unsafe operations and enforce strict compliance with safety norms.

2.2. It is further stated that an interim joint inspection was conducted by the Station Manager (SMR)/ Gaz/ SC, Chief Commercial Inspector (CCI)/SC and Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI)/RPF/SC. As per the inspection report, on 19.O9.2025 at 16:45 hours, the BOC stationed on Platform No.10 near the main portico fell onto the track while the driver was reversing the vehicle after de boarding passengers. Upon being informed by onlookers, the on-duty CCI, Sri B.K. Sinha reported the matter to the Station Manager, Gaz/SC, who immediately contacted the RRI cabin'and instructed that train operations on the affected track be halted to ensure safety of passengers and Railway assets. It is stated that although the toppled BOC was stabilizecl with tire help of catering vendors, OBHS stalf and parcel handling staff, the operator, without seeking authorization or guidance from Railway ofTicials, drove the BOC on the railway track towards the pathway, an eLct witnessed by passengcrs.

2-3. lt is also stated that riding an unauthc on raihvay tracks, thercby endangering pass intcrfcring with train operations, is illegal and protL. taking action, the liccnsee was provided a fair c 1 explain the inciclent and its repe rcussions' Durin I the licensee admitted that the incident occurre( mistake of the operator Mr' Anand and acknowlecl lapses could have serious consequences affect t independentll' without informing operator ac I litted acting any Railwa I authoritY, admitted seeking assistance from other contractl i I staff on the platform, ancl admittecl driving the BOC on the rack without permission. It was admitted that had authorities : :en informed' proper guidance could have been provided' el d that such conduct could have led to derailment if a train hz 1 approached safety and train oPerations' The -ized vehrcle lngcrs and rited. Be fore portunity to the enquiry, due to the ed that such g passenger admitted that :rer submitted use 22 of the ce coverage of as Exhibit P9 nd not for the with Clauses the track. 2.4 . It is stalecl furthcr that the licenset the recluired insurancc was still awaited lt is ful 1 that Exhibit P9 at page 5O is mislcading, as C't Special Conditior-rs of Corltract mandates insurar at least Rs.23O lakhs for four passengers, whe- reflects only Rs-25 lakhs under Public Liabilitl' z strpulated purpose, resulting in non-complianc t

1 O and 22 ol tt,e Special Conditions of Contract. Ciause 10 of the Special Conditions of Contract mandates adequate safety training to drivers and places sole responsibility for provision, operation and maintenance of BOCs on the licensee.

2.5. It is statecl that the letter dated 18.09.2025 was issued by the office of the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager to the licensee regarding safe operation of BOCs, and counselling was conducted by CCI/SC for all operators on the Joint Procedure Order. Despite such counselling a day prior, the operator acted negligently, showing disregard for safety. The licensee admitted failure to fulfil contractual obligations including issuance of ID cards to operators and providing insurance coverage for unnamed passengers. It is stated that in vierv of the enquiry report, personal hearing and paramount consideration of passenger salety and Railway assets, the Railway Administration was constrained to terminate the contract undcr Clause 18.1 of thc Special Conditions of Contract, '"vhich empowers termination without notice for violation of contract terms or serious misconduct, including violation of the Railways Act, 1989, with forfeiture of full trMD/ Security Deposit.

2.6. After following due proccdure .r opportunity of hearing, the contract was terminat from 16.1O.2025 and a termination letter was issr.r to re spondcnts, termination was necessitated c r lapses by the licensee and operator and to enst safety at Secunderabad Railway Statron, which hz.r passengers daily- It is stated that driving a vehic tracks without authorization constitutes an l Section 161 of the Railways Act, 1989, and driviri; endangering public safety is punishable under li the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as atnended it L terminatton was a punitive measure strictly in acr Clause 18. 1 of the Standard Conditions of Contra : full EMD/Security Deposit was rightly forfeited. r 22 of t!;,e Indian Railway Standard General I Contract, the petitioner ought to have invoke: resolution and arbitrzrtion mechanism, which was

3. Hcard Sri Vladimeer Khatoon, learn: petitioner and Smt. N.V. R. Rajya Lakshmi, 1ea r Counsel for Rcspondent No. 1 .

4. The contcntion of the petitioncr that was injured does not dilute the gravity of thc mis<:r jurisprudence mandates that preventive action i:, d affording rd u,ith effect :d. Accordrng c to serious re passenger dles lakhs of c on railway Ience under dangerously :ctior-r 184 of 2019. The ordance with and Lhat the s per Clause lonclitions of thc dispute rot zrvailed. 1 counsel for red Standing no passenger nduct. Safety justified even in absence of actual injury. The respondents have demonstrated that train operations had to be halted and that the incident occurred during peak hours with heavy passenger movement. The plea that the contract had commenced only 23 days prior cannot override contractual obligations expressly undertaken by the petitioner, particularly Clauses 10, 18.1 and 22 of the Special Conditions of Contract.

5. The record further establishes that petitioner failed to comply with mandatory insurance requirements and failed to ensure proper training and supervision of operators. The enquiry conducted on 19.O9 .2025 provided an opportunity to the petitioner, during which admissions were made regarding lapses. The temporary suspension order dated 19 .O9 .2025 clearly recorded reasons relating to safety and anticipated healy passenger rush during Dussehra, Deepavali and Chhath festivals. The termination order dated 16. 1O.2O25 was issued after considering the enquiry, admissions and contractual violations, hence invocation of Articles 14 and 27 is misconceived. The termination was based on objective material, contractual provisions and safety considerations and cannot be termed arbitrary or irrational. Courts exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 d,o not sit as appellate authorities over contractual decisions taken by expert bodies unless perversity IO or mala fides are established No such grounds ar(r made out in the present case.

6. Interference by thc High Court irL contractual matters is limited only to cases where the action o the State or its instrumentalities is shown to be patenl F arbitrary' discriminatory, mala hde, or in violation of statut: y provisions or constitutional manclates Mere breach of contr I lt' erroneous interpretation of contractual clauses' or harsh t onsequences flowing from contractual enforcement do not' t' themselves' warrant invocation of writ jurisdiction'

7. The plea of financial hardship' tl ough noted' cannot override pubiic safety and contrac[rr Ll disciptine' Railway Administration handles lakhs of passen[:rs daily and cannot adoPt a lenient approach in matters ill'olving safety violations. Petitioner also failed to exhaust .l e alternative dispute resolution mechanism providcd under Cir rrst: 22 of the Indian Railu'ay Standard General Conditions o Contract' In view of the admitted facts, contractual prov: ions enquiry findings and statutory obligations under the Railvays Act' 1989 andtheMotorVehiclesAct,lg88,thisCourtfir:<snoillegality' arbitrariness or constitutional inhrmity in the ter nination order dated 16.10.2025. The writ petition is devoid of r: :rit'

1l

8. Accordingly, the Writ petition stands dismissed. No COS tS.

9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. o/. L. VIJAYA LAX S STANT REG R //TRUE COPY// ECTION OFFICER One CC to tril/s VLADIMEER KHATOON' Advocate OP cl One CC to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, DEPUTY S ITOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at HYd era ad [oPUC]

3. Two CD CoPies BSq YV To,

CC TODAY ,\." l" \1. .. . ,..' ^::::.-;-1", .,i ,,_-o.,t i: /.. _ _, '- ei .,:. ri' ...1' HIGH COURT DATED: 2410212026

ORDER

WP.No.32541 ot 2025 WITHOUT COSTS t: Hl,'i 2[2fi DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, ^ee,\ (9Y, k"' () i I