Akash Kalyan FoundationversusSenior Divisional Commercial Manager

                                                                             55-WP-2093-2025 (OS) .odt

     Pallavi

                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
                                       WRIT PETITION NO. 2093 OF 2025
Digitally signed by
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Date: 2026.10.09
13:25:46 +0530
                      Akash Kalyan Foundation                              ...Petitioner
                              Versus
                      Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Anr.          ...Respondents

                                                         ...
                      Mr. Jose Pulikkoden a/w Mr. Steve Pulikkoden, Ms. Nookjehan
                      Sheikh and Ms. Nidhi N. Jain for the Petitioner.

                      Mr. T.J. Pandian a/w Gautam Modanwal, Ms. Aarti Gupta, Ms.
                      Vaishali Barot and Ms. Noorjahan Khan for the Respondents.
                                                         ...

                                   CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
                                           ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.

                                   DATE     : 5th OCTOBER, 2026.


                      P.C.:
                      1.      Heard the learned counsel for the parties.


                      2.      The instant Writ Petition is preferred questioning the validity

                      of the Impugned Termination letter dated 29 th August 2024

                      pertaining to Pay and Use Toilet facilities on various grounds.

                      3.      At the outset, Mr. T.J. Pandian, learned counsel for the

                      Respondents raised an objection qua the maintainability of the

                      Petition on the premise that the present dispute qua the parties is

                      governed by the Indian Railways Stdandard General Conditions of


                                                          1
                                                            55-WP-2093-2025 (OS) .odt


Contract (“Contract” for short). He would submit that in view of an

agreement/settlement      between       the     parties,    the      provisions

contained in the Contract relating to settlement of disputes, there is

an   alternative   mechanism/remedy           available    for   redressal        of

grievances. However, without exhausting the said remedy, the

instant Writ Petition has been preferred by the Petitioner.

4.    Mr. Pandian would place reliance upon Clause 63 of Part II of

the Contract which provides for conciliation of disputes, and

thereafter submit that failing conciliation, remedy of arbitration

under Clause 64(1) of Part II is also available to the Petitioner.

5.    Mr. Pandian, therefore submit that the Writ Petition is liable

to be dismissed on the ground of efficacious alternate remedy

stipulated in the Contract which needs to be availed of by the

parties thereto.

6.    Confronted with this situation, Mr. Pulikkoden, learned

Counsel for the Petitioner would fairly submit that even though a

penalty as has been imposed upon the Petitioner and subsequently,

the Contract has been rescinded, there is no such provision under

the Contract for imposition of such penalty. However, he would

submit that the Petitioner is inclined to initially pursue the

remedy/proceeding in terms of conciliation under Clause 63 of Part

II of the Contract.


                                    2
                                                    55-WP-2093-2025 (OS) .odt


7.     Mr. Pulikkoden, has not disputed the fact that until date a

fresh tender has not been floated.

8.     Considering the factual situation before us and in view of the

provisions contained under Clause 63 of Part II of the Contract, we

deem it appropriate to grant liberty to the Petitioner to approach

the Competent Authority for conciliation. In case the Petitioner

moves an Application for conciliation within a period of 10 days

from today, we expect the Competent Authority in terms of the

Contract to consider the same and endeavour to resolve the dispute

firstly through conciliation in accordance with law. In the event the

conciliation proceedings fail, it would be open to the Petitioner to

invoke the arbitration mechanism under Clause 64(1) of Part II of

the Contract. Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded to exercise

its jurisdiction under Article 226 when the matters/disputes and its

resolution stands covered under the Contract, which the parties are

at liberty to avail of.

9.     With the aforesaid liberty, the instant Writ Petition stands

Disposed Of.




     [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.]                    [CHIEF JUSTICE]




                                     3