Judgment : This writ application is filed by the petitioner company for issuing a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to release the payment of invoice raised by the petitioner for a total sum of Rs.4,81,54,608. The aforesaid amount was claimed by the petitioner company for execution of work orders and or contracts awarded to it by the respondent no.2 entering into sub-contracts with the petitioner company for manufacturing and supply of additional Berth (Middle Berth) for fitment of the same on longitudinal side of existing AC 3-Tier Railway Coaches and Sleeper Class Rail Coaches running within the jurisdiction of Southern Railway. The petitioner was a company within the meaning of companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at “IMECO House”, Budge Trunk Road, Dakghar, Maheshtala, Kolkata700141 with its workshop situated at Kharagpur. The respondent no.1 was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 as a public sector undertaking for manufacturing Rail Coaches, spare parts and Mining Equipments. The Government of India owned 54% of total equity shares and balance 46% was held by public, financial institutions, foreign institutional investors, bank and employees. The respondent no.1 had been designated as “Mini Ratna Category-II” and plays a privotal role and the service core sectors like, defence, rail, power, mining and infrastructure. In other words, the respondent no.1 is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India having deep and pervasive control of the respondent no.2 on it. With the objective of increasing passenger carrying capacities it had been decided by the respondent no.3 that the additional Berths(Meddle berths) should be provided on longitudinal side of existing AC 3-Tier Rail Coaches and Sleeper Class Rail Coaches. The above decision was communicated to all General Managers, All India Railways by the competent authority of the respondent no.3 under communication dated April 25, 2007 for taking immediate action of expeditious implementation of that decision under reference to the respondent no.3. The competent authority of the respondent no.3 further informed the General Managers, All India Railways under its communication dated May 22, 2007 that with concurrence of the financial department of the Ministry of Railways that steps were being taken for presenting supplementary demand for grants before the Parliament in its Monsoon Session. The competent authority of the respondent no.3 further informed the General Managers, All India Railways under its communication dated May 22, 2007 that with concurrence of the financial department of the Ministry of Railways that steps were being taken for presenting supplementary demand for grants before the Parliament in its Monsoon Session. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway and Divisional office awarded contracts for the aforesaid jobs to the respondent no.1 after floating open tender on all India basis by various Zonal Railways. The respondent no.1 entered into sub-contract with the petitioner company for manufacturing and supply of Middle Berths in longitudinal side of 3-Tier Rail Coaches run within the jurisdiction of Southern Railways, amongst other similar sub-contracts in respect of other Indian Railways. The above sub-contract was executed at the office of the petitioner company lying situated at within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The above work was in progress. All on a sudden, competent authority of the respondent no.3 informed the General Managers of all India Railways including the respondent no.4 of its decision with approval of the Hon’ble Minister to discontinue with the scheme of providing longitudinal Middle Berths in Rail Coaches with immediate effect as also to undertake restoration process immediately for completion of the same within eight months’ time. Meanwhile, the petitioner had manufactured Middle Berths for providing the same on the longitudinal side of existing AC 3-Tier Rail Coaches and Sleeper Coaches. On the basis of the orders placed by the respondent no.1 and submitted its invoices to the respondent no.1 for release of payments for the materials manufactured against their orders. After due verification by the Senior Manager of the respondent no.1 on February 25, 2009 the respondent No.1 submitted, in its turn, raised invoices and submitted the same to the concerned railway authorities on March 6, 2009. The competent authority of the Railway Board informed the General Managers of All India Railways under its communication dated March 13, 2009 that quantification of the work had already done by the contractor(includes the berths and mountings already manufactured but not fitted) till the issue of notification regarding the change in policy might be done by the railways and the contract be foreclosed following the due procedure. It had further been noted by the above communication that based on such quantification, payments to the contracting agency might be released for the work already done till the issue of notification regarding the change in policy. The above communication was issued with concurrence of the Finance Director of Ministry of Railway. The above communication is quoted below: “The General Managers All Indian Railways. ICF, Chennal, RCF, Kapurthala The Director General RDSO, Lucknow Sub. : Provision of longitudinal middle berths in coaches – policy review Ref. : (i) Board’s letter No. 2001/M (C )/137/10 Vol. II Pt. II dated 25.04.2007 (ii) Board’s letter No. 2007/M ( C) /137/9 Pt. Dated 18.02.2009 Further to the Board’s letter dated 18.02.2009 cited as reference (ii) as above, the following clarification is given as some of the zonal Railways have raised certain doubts regarding implementation of the above policy review. (i) The quantification of the work already done by the contractor (including the berths and mountings already manufactured but not fitted) till the issue of the notification regarding the change in policy may been done properly by the Railways and the contract may be foreclosed following the due procedure. (ii) Based on this quantification payment to the contracting agency may be made for the work already done till the issue of the notification regarding the change in policy. (iii) Railway shall follow the instructions issued by RDSO regarding removal of longitudinal side middle berth and restoration of the side upper berth to its original position. (iv) Under no circumstances, the removal of the already fitted berth shall be done through a contract agency and instead the same shall be done departmentally duly ensuring that the coaches are not detained for this purpose and thereby not being available for traffic. (v) Railways shall also follow the instructions to be issued by the RDSO/Railway Board regarding redeployment of these berths to the best advantage of the Railways. 2. This issues with the concurrence of the finance directorate of the Ministry of Railways. Please acknowledge receipt. (Arivan Nautiyal) Director Mechanical Engineering (Coaching) Railway Board. No. 2007/M (C )/137/9Pt. Copy for information to : (1) FA & CAO s – All Indian Railways (2) Dy. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Railway), 224, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi (with 80 spares). For Financial Commissioner (Railways) Copy to : Sr. Please acknowledge receipt. (Arivan Nautiyal) Director Mechanical Engineering (Coaching) Railway Board. No. 2007/M (C )/137/9Pt. Copy for information to : (1) FA & CAO s – All Indian Railways (2) Dy. Comptroller and Auditor General of India (Railway), 224, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi (with 80 spares). For Financial Commissioner (Railways) Copy to : Sr. PPSs/PSs/PS to CRB, FC, MT, MM, ML, ME, MS, Secretary, EDPM, ED(Coaching) F(X)II and Budget Brach, Railway Board.” By another communication dated June 22, 2010 the competent authority of the Railway Board directed the Chief Mechanical Engineer of India Railways for an early reconciliation and settlement of pending bills. The above communication is quoted below: “Government of India Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) No. 2007/M(C)/137/9/Pt New Delhi, dated 22.06.2010 The Chief Mechanical Engineers, All Indian Railways. Sub. : Payment towards contracts for retrotifment of longitudinal middle berths in GSCN & GACCN Coaches. Ref. : Board’s letters of even No. dated 18.02.2009 and 30.03.2009 Attention is invited to guidelines issued vide Board’s letter dated 30.03.2009 referred to above regarding discontinuance of the scheme of longitudinal middle berths, wherein it was clearly indicated that payments are to be released to the contractors for all such berths which had been fitted on the coaches as also for those which had been manufactured till the date of notification of Board guidelines i.e. 30.03.2009, even if the same were not fitted in the coaches. Reports from various quarters indicate that the comprehensive quantification of the berths manufactured and consequent payments on this account have still not been reconciled/released on many of the Railways. Railways were once again advised vide Board’s letter No. 2010/M (C)/142/2 dated 13.05.2010 to communicate the fund requirements to meet this liability. Some of the Railways have communicated that they are still to come to a conclusive figure and that the bills raised by some contractors are under dispute and subject to reconciliation. Considering that policy directives were issued more than a year back and such berths have been physically removed from the coaches, it is once again requested for an early reconciliation and settlement of the pending bills. Action taken in this context may kindly be advised. (Arvind Nautiyal) Dir. Mech. Engg. Considering that policy directives were issued more than a year back and such berths have been physically removed from the coaches, it is once again requested for an early reconciliation and settlement of the pending bills. Action taken in this context may kindly be advised. (Arvind Nautiyal) Dir. Mech. Engg. (Chg.) Railway Board.” Thereafter, RITES Ltd. a Government of India enterprises, issued inspection certificate dated August 31, 2010 to the respondent no.1 in respect of supply of retrenchment of longitudinal Meddle Berth and 590 GSCN(Sleeper) coaches manufactured by the petitioner company during the period from October 2008 to December 2008 and December 2008 to January 2, 2009 respectively after conducting inspection at the workshop of the petitioner company situated at post office Rakhagungle, Vill-Sadatpur, Kharagpur, District West Midnapore, West Bengal. On August 27 and 28, 2010(at page 38 of this writ application) the Senior Divisional Engineer, Southern Railway object the Chief Engineer(CME) Southern Railway for arrangement of a fund of Rs.5.56 crores for the purpose of settlement of above dues the above communication is quoted below: “Southern Railway Thiruvananthapuram Division Mechanical Branch, Thiruvananthapuram-695014 Date : 28.09.2010 No. V/M.CW/271/MB E/MAS Sub. : Retro fitment of longitudinal middle berths in GSCN and ACCN coaches at Nagercoil coaching depot. Ref. : This office letter of even No. dated 01.03.2010 A contract was awarded to M/s. BEML Ltd., Bangalore for the fitment of longitudinal middle berths in 589 GSCN coaches and 126 ACCN coaches. During the course of the execution, both the works were short closed vide Railway board letter No/ 2007/M( C) 137/8/Pt. Dated 18.02.2009. The status of the contract at the time of foreclosure of contract is furnished below : Type of coach No. of coaches awarded as per agreement No. of coaches fitted Material already supplied Balance quantity GSCN 589 146 18 425 ACCN 126 6 34 86 In the meantime Railway board vide No. 2007/M(C )/137/9 Pt. dated 30.03.2009 has advised that the payment can be made to the contracting agency for the berths and mountings already manufactured but not fitted till the issue of notification. As such the firm was advised to submit the RITES inspection certificate for the finished products manufactured prior to the cancellation of contract i.e. prior to 24.02.2009. dated 30.03.2009 has advised that the payment can be made to the contracting agency for the berths and mountings already manufactured but not fitted till the issue of notification. As such the firm was advised to submit the RITES inspection certificate for the finished products manufactured prior to the cancellation of contract i.e. prior to 24.02.2009. Now the firm M/s. BEML has submitted the RITES certificate for the finished products for 425 coach sets for GSCN coaches and 86 ACCN coach sets with indication of manufacturing date prior to the foreclosure date and the material is readily available at the firm’s vendor’s shop. The financial implication for the settlement of material cost for the balance quantity of material available at the firm’s vendor shop is as follows : I. Retro fitment of longitudinal middle berths in SCN coaches. II. Retro fitment of longitudinal middle berths in ACCN coaches. Total financial implication for settling material cost for GSCN & ACCN coaches under allocation 23-2131-03 = 4,67,79,750 + 88,06,400 = 5,55,86,150/- When the issue is once settled, the consignments are to be disposed and this huge quantity of such berths are not required for this division this can be better utilized on at work. In this connection Railway Board letter No. 2007/M (C)/137/9Pt. dated 30.03.2009 may please be referred. Hence, it is requested to CME that kindly advised the disposal of the berths including the mountings which is to be accepted form the vendors as per the Railway board directives. Additional fund of Rs. 5,56 cores is required to effect the payment of this materials. So Head quarters may kindly provide necessary funds in the appropriate head of account (23-2131-03). (P.A. Salahudheen) Sr. Divisional Mechanical Engineer” By a communication issued under memo no.2010-B-116 dated March 31, 2011 the Railway Board allotted funds to the tune of Rs.60,925/-in the final grant of 2010-11 for acceptance of debits from Southern Railway towards fitment of additional longitudinal berths in AC three tier and Sleeper Coaches. The Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (C&W) issued a communication dated April 28, 2011 to the Chief Mechanical Engineer Southern Railway directing the Senior DME/TVC to arrange clearing of the pending bills in connecting with the aforesaid fitment of additional Longitudinal rail berths the above communication dated April 28, 2011 is quoted below: “Southern Railway Headquarter office Mechanical Branch Chennai-600 003. No.M/CW/271/Budget. Date 28/04/2011. Sr. DME/TVC, MDN, MAS. No.M/CW/271/Budget. Date 28/04/2011. Sr. DME/TVC, MDN, MAS. Sub: Allotment of fund sunder Demand No.16-Additional Longitudinal berths. Ref: Railway Board’s letter No.2010-B-116 dated 31.03.2011. Railway Board has indicated allotment of fund to the tune of Rs.60,925(000) in the Final Grant 2010-11 for acceptance of debits from Southern Railway towards fitment of additional longitudinal berths in GSCN & ACCAN coaches: against PB No.609/10-11 of Railway Board. A copy of Railway Board’s letter cited under reference is enclosed. The pending bills on this account may therefore be arranged to be cleared. (R. Manimaran) Dy. CME/C7W/HQ. For Chief Mechanical Engineer Copy to Sr. DFM/TVC for necessary action please.” Since the invoices raised in respect of AC 3-Tier and Sleeper Rail Coaches were not settled by the Southern Railway, the respondent no.1 submitted a representation dated May 12, 2011 to the Chief Mechanical Engineer Southern Railway for early settlement of their claim drawing the attention of the above authority towards the fact that Chennai Division of Southern Railway had completely settled its claim against the work contract for retrenchment of the above berths in railway coaches. It was followed by reminders dated June 14, 2011, and June 28, 2011. The petitioner company also submitted its representation dated May 3, 2011 to the respondent no.1 for settlement of its above claim the above representation was followed by representation dated June, 20, 2011, February 4, 2012 and February 8, 2012. In the meantime, the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway disclosed under its communication dated October 31, 2011 on the basis of an application under Right to Information Act, 2005 that the payment in connection with retrenchment of longitudinal of Middle Berth in AC 3-Tier and Sleeper Coaches would be released on specific direction by the Headquarters and subject to providing fund in the current year. At the very outset, a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ application was raised by the respondent nos.2 and 4 on behalf of the respondents. According to Mr. Swapan Banerjee, learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos.2 to 4, the execution involved in this writ application arise outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to him, the office of the respondent authority was lying and situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and the work under reference was also executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to Mr. According to him, the office of the respondent authority was lying and situated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court and the work under reference was also executed outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to Mr. Banerjee the contract was also terminated outside the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. It is further submitted by Mr. Benerjee that the contract under reference was executed by and between the respondent no.1 and 2. According to him, the petitioner company was a stranger to the respondent nos.2 and 4. According to Mr. Banerjee this writ application is not maintainable for the aforesaid reasons. According to Mr. Banerjee the claim amount involved in this writ application is disputed. The decisions of P.M.A. Metorpolitan Vs. Moran Mar Marthoma, reported in AIR 1955 SC 2001, Om Prakash Srivastava Vs. Union of India, reported in (2006)6 SCC 207 , Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Kalyan Banerjee, reported in (2000) 3 SCC 456, Musaraf Hossain Khan Vs. Bhagheeratha Engg. Ltd., reported in AIR 2006 SC 1288 , M/s. Kusum Ingots & Alloys Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 2004 SC 2321 and Brij Mohan Vs. M.P. State Road Transport Corporation, reported in AIR 1987 SC 29 are relies upon by Mr. Banerjee in support of his above submissions. On the other hand, it is submitted by Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Senior advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner company that the respondent no.1 was a state within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution of India. The sub-contract under reference was executed within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to him, the instruction for ascertaining the status of work contract under reference at the instance of the respondent authority took place in the workshop of the petitioner company within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. According to him, the aforesaid incidents were the part of the cause of action involved in this writ application. With regard to the question of maintainability of an application under article 226 of the constitution of India regarding to the contract under reference, it is submitted by Mr. Mukherjee that under the facts and circumstances of this case the claim at the instance of the petitioner company is maintainable on the settled principles of law taking into consideration of the fact of presence of all the parties. Mukherjee that under the facts and circumstances of this case the claim at the instance of the petitioner company is maintainable on the settled principles of law taking into consideration of the fact of presence of all the parties. The decisions of A. V.D’ Costa Vs. B. C. Patael, reported in AIR 1955 SC 412 , Durga Prasanna Gupta Vs. State of West Bengal, reported in AIR 1972 Cal 378 , State of Bihar Vs. Barakar Engineering & Foundry Works Ltd., reported in AIR 1972 SC 378 , State of Orissa Vs. Goenka Investment & Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd., reported in 1983(1) CHN 354 , The Chairman & Managing Director, Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Dilip Kumar De, reported in 1987(1) CLJ 354 , N. K. Chakrabarty Vs. Council for the Indian School Certificate Examination & Ors., reported in CAL LT 1999(1) HC 42, Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2004(6) SCC 254 , Bharumal Udhomal & ors. Vs. Sakhawatmal Veshomal & Ors., reported in AIR 1956 Bom 111 , State of Punjab Vs. A. K. Raha, reported in AIR 1964 Cal 418 , S. P. Consolidated Engineering Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1966 Cal 259 , Omlica Industries Vs. CCE reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769 , Monghibai Vs. Cooverji Umersey, reported in 66 IA 210 in support of his submissions made by Mr. Mukherjee with regard to the maintainability of this writ application. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the parties at length and having considered the facts and circumstances of this case the preliminary objections raised by the respondent nos.2 to 4 is taken up for considering. Admittedly, the power conferred by clause 1 of Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to territories within which the cause of action wholly or any part, arises in the exercise of such power. After perusing the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the sub-contract in between the petitioner company and the respondent company was executed at the office of the petitioner company lying and situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. After perusing the facts and circumstances of this case I find that the sub-contract in between the petitioner company and the respondent company was executed at the office of the petitioner company lying and situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. It is also not in disputes that the instruction dated august 27 and 28, 20010 were conducted by RITES Ltd.(A Government of India Enterprise) for giving inspection certificate to ascertain the quantity of longitudinal middle berth relating to payment for supply and retrofitment of the same took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. The above instruction referred to communication issued by the Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Southern Railway in his communication issued under memo no.V/M.CW/271.MB dated September 28, 2010. Therefore, the cause of action in part took place within the territorial jurisdiction of this High Court. It is the settled principles of law that even if a small fraction of the cause of action of bundle of facts (which given the petitioner a right to suit) approved within the territories of a state, the High Court of that State will have the jurisdiction. Reference may be made to the decision of Rajendran Chingaravelu Vs. R. K. Mishra, reported in (2010) 1 SCC 457 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below: “9. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the Andhra Pradesh High Court was justified in holding that as the seizure took place at Chennai(Tamil Nadu), the appellant could not maintain the writ petition before it. The High Court did not examine whether any part of cause of action arose in Andhra Pradesh. Clause(2) of Article 226 makes it clear that the High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action arises wholly or in part, will have jurisdiction. This would mean that even if a small fraction of the cause of action (that bundle of facts which gives a petitioner, a right to sue) accrued within the territories of Andhra Pradesh, the High Court of that State will have jurisdiction.” In view of the above settled principles of law the first preliminary objection with regard to the territorial jurisdiction cannot be sustained in law. Regarding the second preliminary objection of maintainability of the claim of the petitioner company against the union of India, I find that admittedly, the claim of the petitioner company was against the respondent no.1. Admittedly, the respondent company was an instrumentality of the state. Admittedly, for supply longitudinal middle berth in 3-tier railway coaches run within the jurisdiction of Southern Railway the above respondent entered into a contract for supply of the aforesaid middle berths in longitudinal side of Railway Coaches with the respondent no.1. Therefore, all parties are present before this court. It is a settled principles of law that if all parties are present before the court in a suit the same is maintainable. Reference may be made to the decision of the Monghibai Vs. Cooverji Umersey, reported in 66 I.A. 210 and the relevant portions of above decision are quoted below. “It has long been recognized that one or more of several persons jointly interested can bring an action in respect of joint property, and if their right to sue is challenged can amend by joining their co-contractors as plaintiffs, if they will consent, or as codefendants if they will not. Such cases as Luke v. Southy Kensington Hotel Co.(I) and Cullen v. Knowles (2) are examples of this principle. Nor, indeed, would it matter that a wrong person had originally sued though he had no cause of action: see Hughes v. The Pump House Hotel Co., Ld. (No.2). (3) Once all the parties are before the Court the Court can make the appropriate order, and should give judgment in favour of all the persons interested whether they be joined as plaintiffs or defendants. Prima facie, therefore, the trial Court in the present case should have given judgment in favour of the eight of the original partners who survived, though some of them had been made defendants: see Cullen v. Knowles.(4)” In view of the above settled principles of law the second objection with regard to the maintainability of this writ application cannot be sustained in law. The decision of P.M.A. Metropolitan(supra) was delivered determine the objection to the maintainability of suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case the above issue cannot be a precedent for determining the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. The decision of P.M.A. Metropolitan(supra) was delivered determine the objection to the maintainability of suit under section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the present case the above issue cannot be a precedent for determining the objection regarding territorial jurisdiction. In the matter of OM Prakash Srivastava(supra) the question of legality of the order passed by the learned Single Judge Delhi High Court disposing the writ petition holding that Allahabad High Court would also have jurisdiction to deal with grievances of the writ petitioner and could deal with conditions of prisoners in the State more effectively, though the Delhi High Court modified jurisdiction was subject matter of scrutiny before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the above decision does not help the respondent nos.2 to 4 in the instant case. In the matter of Eastern Coalfields (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme court examined that simply because a situs of the company was situated within the territorial limits of a High Court, that would not give jurisdiction to that High Court unless cause of action arise within the territorial jurisdiction of that court. The above facts and circumstances are not available in the present writ application to apply the above decision in this case. In the matter of Musaraf Hossain Khan(supra) it was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that only such High Court within whose jurisdiction the order of subordinate court has been passed would have the jurisdiction to entertain an application under article 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the above decision does not held the respondent nos.2 to 4 in any way. In the matter of M/s. Kusum Ingots(supra) in the doctrine of forum convenience was the issue for examination. That issue is absent in the instant writ application. With regard to the merits of the present case, admittedly, the respondent no.1 entered into a contract with the Southern Railway for applying fitment of longitudinal middle berth in sleeper class Railway coaches. It is not in dispute that the respondent no.1 entered into a contract with the petitioner company. It is reveled from the materials on record that during the progress of the above work, the above contract was cancelled on the basis of a policy adopted by the Railway Board. Therefore, the petitioner company admittedly acted upon the assurance given by the respondent no.1 investing its fund for manufacturing longitudinal middle class berths. It is reveled from the materials on record that during the progress of the above work, the above contract was cancelled on the basis of a policy adopted by the Railway Board. Therefore, the petitioner company admittedly acted upon the assurance given by the respondent no.1 investing its fund for manufacturing longitudinal middle class berths. It is also an admitted position that that above work was cancelled on the basis of the decision of the Railway Board without any fault or laches on the part of the petitioner company or the respondent no.1. By virtue of the communication dated March 13, 2009 issued by the competent authority of the Railway Board the General Manager of All India Railways were informed amongst others, payment to the contracting agency might be made for the work already done till the issue of the notification regarding change a policy. Admittedly, the Railway Board alleged funds to the tune of Rs.6 cores in the final grant of 2010-11 for remittance to dues payable towards fitment of additional longitudinal berths in AC 3-tier and sleeper coaches. It is also not in dispute that the Deputy Chief Mechanical Engineer (C & W) issued a communication dated April 28, 2011 directed the Senior DMM/TVC to arrange clearing of the pending bills in connection with the aforesaid fitment of additional longitudinal railway berths. It is revealed from the certificate dated August 31, 2010 issued by the RITES Ltd., Government of India Enterprises that the claim of the petitioner of manufacturing the longitudinal middle berths under reference was genuine. The above claim was forwarded to the competent authority by the officer of the Southern Eastern Raillery for payment to the respondent no.1. The aforesaid admitted facts and circumstances leads to a conclusion that the petitioner company changed its position depending on the promise held by the respondent no.1 in the matter of manufacturing of fitment of longitudinal middle berths in 3-tier AC and Sleeper Railway Coaches of the Southern Railway. Admittedly, the respondent no.1 acted on the basis of the promise held by the Southern Railway. The Railway Board released the required fund for releasing the same for payment of longitudinal meddle berths. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable with regard to the claim of the petitioner company from the respondent no.1 Reference may be made to the decision of Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. Meerut Vs. The Railway Board released the required fund for releasing the same for payment of longitudinal meddle berths. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is squarely applicable with regard to the claim of the petitioner company from the respondent no.1 Reference may be made to the decision of Pawan Alloys & Casting Pvt. Ltd. Meerut Vs. U.P. State Electricity Board and Ors., reported in (1997) 7 SCC 251 and the relevant portions of the above decision is quoted below: “10. It is now well settled by the series of decision of this court that the State authorities as well as its limbs like the Board covered by the sweep of Article 12 of the Constitution of India being treated as “State” within the meaning of the said article, can be made subject to the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel in cases where because of their representation the party claiming estoppel has changed its position and if such an estoppel does not fly in the face of any statutory prohibition, absence of power and authority of the promisor and is otherwise not opposed to public interest, and also when equity in favour of the promise does not outweigh equity in favour of the promisor entitling the latter to legally get out of the promise.” Since the respondent no.1, being an instrumentality of the State acted on the basis of the promise held by the Southern Eastern Railway. It has been held hereinabove that all the parties before this court this is an application under article 226 of the Constitution of India can be disposed of commanding the concerned respondents to release its fund for payment of the claim of the petitioner company. I, therefore, direct the competent authority of the Southern Railway to release the fund allotted to it for payment towards the fitment of longitudinal berths in its Sleeper Class Railway Coaches on the basis of the claim of the respondent no.1 in its favour so far as the claim under reference is concerned within a period of two months from date. The respondent no.1 is directed to release the above amount in favour of the petitioner company within a month from the date of receipt of the same from the South Eastern Railway. This writ application is, thus, disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.