Ashok Kumar v. The Chief Vigilance Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 08.04.2026

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI Ashok Kumar ... Petitioner Vs.

1 The Chief Vigilance Officer, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC), 4th Floor, Tower-D, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029.

2 M/s.Quiick Yatra Rep. by its Proprietor Mr.Sumit Sachdeva Netaji Subhash Place, Pitampura, Shakurpur, NSP, Delhi, New Delhi - 110 034.

... Respondents Prayer:

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 along with prior legal notices dated 02.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, to conduct an appropriate enquiry including vigilance action against the second 1/4

respondent, M/s.Quiick Yatra and its proprietor, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's claims, including refund of Rs.1,63,594/- together with compensation, within a time frame to be fixed by this Hon'ble Court.

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Neeraj For Respondents : Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar

O R D E R

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking issuance of Writ of Mandamus directing the first respondent, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC), to consider and dispose of the petitioner's representation dated 18.12.2025 along with prior legal notices dated 02.02.2025 and 17.02.2025, to conduct an appropriate enquiry including vigilance action against the second respondent, M/s.Quiick Yatra and its proprietor, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the petitioner's claims, including refund of Rs.1,63,594/- together with compensation, within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.

2.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the agent of second respondent and second respondent is the Principal Service Provider of first respondent and 2/4

further submitted that the petitioner paid more than Rs.1 Lakh as agent fees to the second respondent, however, the second respondent did not allow the petitioner to perform ticket booking and cheated the petitioner, thereby, the petitioner made representation seeking refund of the amount paid to the second respondent and since the same was not considered, the petitioner issued legal notice to the respondents, however, there is no response.

3.The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent appointed the second respondent as Principal Service Provider for online ticket booking and there is no direct contact between the petitioner and the first respondent and further submitted that the petitioner's legal notice issued to the first respondent was already answered by the first respondent vide reply dated 12.03.2025.

4.The petitioner is the agent of second respondent and there is no direct contact between the petitioner and the first respondent. The dispute between the petitioner and the second respondent, in the opinion of this Court, has to be ventilated only before the competent civil Court.

3/4

M.DHANDAPANI,J.

pri 5.In view of the above, this Court without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, grants liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent civil Court as against the second respondent, in the manner known to law.

6.The writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 08.04.2026 pri Index: Yes/ No Speaking Order: Yes/ No NCC: Yes/ No To 1 The Chief Vigilance Officer, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd (IRCTC), 4th Floor, Tower-D, World Trade Centre, Nauroji Nagar, New Delhi - 110 029.

08.04.2026 4/4