Disposed¶7

Sanjay Prasad Koiree v. Union of India and Ors.

Calcutta HC12 May 2026WPA/10275/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.A 10275 of 2026; Sanjay Prasad Koiree; Union of India; Sree Shivam Cargo Kolkata; Contract Cancellation Certificate 27.03.2026; ICF to LHB rake conversion; train no. 13015/16 HWH-JMP-HWH exp.; railway authorities; abeyance; function till 07.08.2026; W.P.A 7544 of 2026; W.P.A. 2028 of 2026; not a precedent; proprietorship firm; Dinesh Kumar Sharma J.; writ petition disposed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27 March 2026 put in abeyance; petitioner permitted to function till 7 August 2026 in accordance with law; relief subject to final outcome of W.P.A. 2028 of 2026 and expressly not a precedent. ¶7

Sanjay Prasad Koiree Vs Union of India and Ors. — Calcutta HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶7

Issue for consideration

Whether the Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27 March 2026 issued to Sree Shivam Cargo, Kolkata owing to conversion of the ICF rake of train no. 13015/16 HWH-JMP-HWH exp. into LHB rake w.e.f. 29.03.2026 was arbitrary and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶2

Court's answer

The impugned Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27 March 2026 is put in abeyance.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The railway authorities shall allow the petitioner to function till 7 August 2026 in accordance with law.

¶8

Key takeaways

The order is made subject to the final outcome of W.P.A. 2028 of 2026 and is expressly declared not to be a precedent.ratio¶9
Since no affidavit was filed by the railways authorities, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondent.obiter¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition W.P.A 10275 of 2026 (Sanjay Prasad Koiree v. Union of India & Ors.) was disposed of by a single-member Bench (Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.) on 12.05.2026. The petitioner, sole proprietor of Sree Shivam Cargo, Kolkata, had challenged a Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27 March 2026 issued by the railway authorities on account of conversion of the ICF rake of train no. 13015/16 HWH-JMP-HWH exp. into LHB rake w.e.f. 29.03.2026. Counsel relied on a Coordinate Bench decision on identical facts in W.P.A 7544 of 2026 (which the Union stated had been implemented). In view of the submissions, the Court put the cancellation certificate in abeyance and directed the railway authorities to allow the petitioner to function till 7 August 2026 in accordance with law, subject to the final outcome of W.P.A. 2028 of 2026 and expressly declaring the order not to be a precedent. As no affidavit was filed, the allegations were deemed not admitted.

¶1

12.05.2026 (D/L-34) Ct. No. -02 (Susanta)

¶2

W.P.A 10275 Of 2026

¶3

Sanjay Prasad Koiree - Vs - Union of India & Ors.

¶4

Mr. Saptarshi Roy,

¶5

Mr. Kakali Das Chakraborty,

¶6

... for the Petitioner.

¶7

Mr. Rajendra Banerjee,

¶8

Ms. Ranjana Chatterjee,

¶9

Mr. Sauvik Ganguly,

¶10

… for the U.O.I.

¶11

Present petition has been filed challenging the Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27^th March, 2026 of Sree Shivam Cargo, Kolkata on account of the fact that the ICF rake of train no. 13015 /16 HWH-JMP-HWH exp. will be converted into LHB rake w.e.f. 29.03.2026.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by the railway authorities is totally arbitrary, whimsical and is liable to be set aside.

¶13

Learned Counsel further submits that the Coordinate Bench of this Court on the identical facts in W.P.A 7544 of 2026 (Sanjay Prasad Koiree Vs. Union of India & Ors.) allowed the petition, inter alia, holding that the action of the authority in terminating the contract is unfair and allowed the

¶14

¶15

same to operate until the date of expiry of their term.

¶16

Learned Counsel submits that Sree Shivam Cargo, Kolkata is a proprietorship firm and is being represented by its sole proprietor that is the petitioner herein, namely, Shri Sanjay Prasad Koiree.

¶17

The learned Counsel for the Union of India submits on instruction that the order passed in the identical case by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WPA 7544 of 2026 has already been implemented.

¶18

Learned Counsel submits that an appropriate order may be passed but it may not create any precedent and may be subject to the final order in W.P.A. 2028 of 2026.

¶19

In view of the submissions made, the impugned Contract Cancellation Certificate dated 27^th March, 2026 is put in abeyance.

¶20

The railways authorities shall allow the petitioner to function till 7^th August, 2026 in accordance with law.

¶21

However, this order shall be subject to final outcome of W.P.A. 2028 of 2026 and shall not be a precedent.

¶22

¶23

Since no affidavit has been filed by the railways authorities, the allegations made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondent.

¶24

With the above observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶25

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, duly applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of all usual requisite formalities.

¶26

(Dinesh Kumar Sharma, J.)

Sanjay Prasad Koiree v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Prasad Koiree v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemant Bangur and Ors. Vs Madhulata Kankani

Rajesh Khandelwal Vs Zaid Alam and Others

Chandrachur Chatterjee Vs Malati Sen and Anr.

Malati Barik Vs Sideshwar Barik and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Pandey Vs Sanjy Kumar Pandey

Oriental Gem and Jewellary Co. Vs Eih Ltd.