JUDGMENT A.M. Sapre, J. Heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. This is an intra-court appeal filed by the Respondents of Writ Petition (C) No.4306 of 2013 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in abovementioned writ petition. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with directions to the parties for ensuring compliance so that the controversy raised by the writ petition stands decided. So the short question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in disposing of the writ petition with directions? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:- The respondent is a civil contractor. They were awarded one contract by the railways for construction of the site known as “Changsari- provision of FCI siding (full rake facility).“ It is in execution of this contract, the disputes arose between the appellant (railway) and the respondent (contractor) because the work in question which was to be completed within 11 months was not completed by the contractor. It is due to this reason the appellant (Railways) issued the notice dated 15.7.2013 to the respondent (contractor) and called upon them to ensure its compliance failing which it was threatened that proper action as contemplated under the contract would follow against the respondent. The respondent felt aggrieved of the said notice filed the writ petition out of which this appeal arises and questioned its legality and correctness on the grounds taken in the writ petition. The appellant (Railways) entered appearance and filed the return defending the issuance of notice impugned in the writ petition on several grounds. It is this issue which was gone into by the writ court. However the writ court did not consider it necessary to decide the issue on merits in the light of the grounds and submissions urged by the parties in support of their contentions and instead passed the following directions and disposed of the writ petition. “18. It is this issue which was gone into by the writ court. However the writ court did not consider it necessary to decide the issue on merits in the light of the grounds and submissions urged by the parties in support of their contentions and instead passed the following directions and disposed of the writ petition. “18. Having regard to the above, following directions are hereby issued :- (1) Petitioners or their representative(s) shall appear before Senior Divisional Engineer, N.F. Railway, Rangia within 7(seven) days from today ; (2) On such appearance, Senior Divisional Engineer or his authorized representative shall ensure measurement of the work done by the petitioners including the materials kept at the site by the petitioners ; (3) Railway authorities shall ensure that performance guarantee, security deposit and earnest money of the petitioners are not forfeited and those are refunded back to the petitioners ; (4) The above exercise should be carried out within a period of 4(four) weeks from the appearance of the petitioners. 19. Subject to the above, it would be open to the railway authorities to proceed for issuance of fresh tender to carry out the remaining work.” It is against this order of the writ court, the Railways has felt aggrieved and filed this appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting aside of the impugned order remand the case to the writ court for deciding the writ petition on merits afresh. In our considered opinion, the need to remand has occasioned due to the reasons that firstly without deciding the writ petition on merits, the writ court could not have issued the impugned directions. In our considered opinion, the need to remand has occasioned due to the reasons that firstly without deciding the writ petition on merits, the writ court could not have issued the impugned directions. Secondly, and again without deciding the issues arising in the merits of the case as to whether the action complained of in the writ petition was legal or not and if so on what basis, the direction to the appellant (railway) to refund the security and earnest money to the respondent (writ petitioner) was not justified.Thirdly, once the termination was held justified as the tenure of the order goes to show (though there is no discussion on this issue on its merits much less categorical finding) then in such event, no direction of any nature in favour of the respondent (writ petitioner)much less for refund of security and earnest money could have been given by the writ court – it being inconsistent with the finding and instead, the writ court ought to have given direction in favour of the appellant (Railways) to make recovery of their legitimate dues from the respondent and lastly when the parties had raised several grounds and contested the issue arising in the writ petition on the merits then the writ court should have decided the writ petition on its merits one way or other either by upholding the notice impugned in the writ petition or quashing it as the case may be keeping in view the grounds raised on facts and principal of law governing the issue arising in the writ petition, rather than to give directions. It could be done only if the parties had compromised the matter but not otherwise. It is for these reasons, we are not inclined to uphold the impugned order and hence allow the appeal, set aside the order and remand the case to the writ court for deciding the writ petition on merits in accordance with law without being influenced by our observations on merits which we have refrained from making. The registry is directed to list the writ petition out of which this appeal arises before the writ court as per roaster. Parties would be at liberty to apply for any kind of interim relief in the writ petition. No cost.