K.Laxmi Amma, vs The Union Of India,
2021 Latest Caselaw 2251 AP

           THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

               WRIT PETITION No.12420 OF 2021

ORDER:

Heard Sri Narasimha Rao Gudiseva, learned counsel for

the petitioners, and Smt.K.Aruna, learned Standing Counsel for

Railways, appearing for the respondents, apart from perusing

the entire material available on record.

2. In the present Writ Petition, challenge is to the Tender

Notices bearing Nos.GNT/Catering/1/37/2021, dated

07.06.2021, issued by the respondent authorities. First

petitioner herein is concerned with the tender in respect of

platform-I of Markapur Road-D Railway Station and second

petitioner is concerned with platform-I of Cumbum Railway

Station.

3. According to the petitioners, they are the existing

contractors and their licencees came to an end on 23.04.2020.

The sum and substance of the case of the petitioners in the

present Writ Petition is that, contrary to the Catering Policy,

2010, respondent authorities are proceeding with the process

of inviting tenders without renewing the existing licences of the

petitioners herein. It is the further case of the petitioners herein

that, on 06.12.2019, petitioners herein submitted their

applications for grant of renewal under Clause-17 of the

Catering Policy, 2010.

AVSS,J

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the

impugned action of undertaking the process of tenders in

respect of the subject contracts is in contravention of not only

the Catering Policy, 2010 but also the judgment of the

composite High Court in W.P.No.14577 of 2013 & Batch, dated

16.08.2013, and the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016.

5. On instructions, it is strenuously contended by the

learned Standing Counsel that having regard to the language of

Clause-17 of the Catering Policy, 2010, petitioners herein are

not entitled to any renewal. It is also the submission of the

learned Standing Counsel that during the period of contract of

the first petitioner, as many as nine times, he was penalised

and in respect of the second petitioner, on six occasions he was

penalised.

6. On hearing the said submissions, it is contended by the

learned counsel for the petitioners that without being preceded

by the existence of any record or opportunity, such action was

resorted to.

7. It is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned

Standing Counsel that the renewal applications of the

petitioners herein were rejected on 03.05.2021 and, in view of

the closure of the business premises of the petitioners herein,

the orders were pasted on the doors.

AVSS,J

8. In this context, it may be appropriate to refer to

Clause-17 of the Catering Policy, 2010, which reads as under:

17.RENEWAL Renewal will not be a matter of right. The licencee must apply for renewal minimum 6 (six) months in advance before the expiry of the contract. Renewal will be based on the following: 17.1 Satisfactory performance of the licencee during the tenure of the contract. An imposition of fine/warnings on more than 5 occasions will result in rejection of the application for renewal. 17.2 Payment of all dues/ arrears - No Dues Certificate from the concerned authority, must be attached along with the application for renewal. 17.3 The applicant must submit the documents afresh along with the renewal application regarding the details mentioned in para 14.2.1.1, 14.2.1.2 and 14.2.1.3 and in case of GMUs relevant documents as mentioned in the Standard Bid Documents will be required to be submitted afresh along with the above mentioned documents.

17.4 The Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) on catering performance will be modified in accordance with this policy. The detailed instructions on ACRs will be issued by the Railway Board. ACRs maintained by the Railways for the Licencee seeking renewal shall be scruitinised by the Competent Authority granting renewal. Based on the ACRs for the period of tenure the marks will be allotted to the licencee. A minimum cut off criteria based on the grading of the ACRs for grant of renewal must be notified by the zonal railways in advance.

17.5 The licence fee shall be revised and reassessed at the time of each renewal subject to a minimum increase of 10% of the existing licence fee".

9. It is very much evident from a reading of the above Clause

that any individual, who intends to have his licence period

renewed, is required to make an application in the said AVSS,J

direction within six months in advance before the expiry of the

contract. In the instant case, admittedly, the contract period

came to an end in the month of April, 2020 but the petitioners

herein submitted their applications for grant of renewal on

06.12.2020. It is also required to be noted that, as per Clause

17.1 of the Catering Policy, 2010, there is a prohibition on

renewal in the event of there being fine/warnings on more than

five occasions. In the instant case, it is brought to the notice of

this Court, as mentioned supra, by the learned Standing

Counsel that such imposition was made by the respondents

herein for nine times in respect of the first petitioner and six

times in respect of the second petitioner. The contention as

regards the validity of such imposition is not the subject matter

of the present Writ Petition, as such, the same cannot be gone

into.

10. Coming to the judgment, sought to be pressed into service

by the learned counsel for the petitioners, a reading of the same

makes it very much manifest that in the said judgment the

composite High Court, while dealing with the Catering Policy,

2010, dealt with the aspects of renewal and entitlement of the

existing licencees under the relevant Clauses enumerated

therein and held that the petitioners therein would be entitled

for consideration for renewal but the Court did not deal with the

aspect, touching Clause-17, which deals with the time limit and

the imposition of fine/warnings. When the existing licencees

want to avail the benefits of the scheme/policy they need to AVSS,J

adhere to/satisfy the relevant Clauses and they cannot ask the

Court to dispense with certain Clauses while intending to seek

advantage of the other Clauses. It is also required to be noted

that, in the considered opinion of this Court, the judgments on

which the learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance

would not render any assistance to the case of the petitioners

having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. In view of the above, this Court does not find any valid

reason to interdict the respondents herein from proceeding

further with the tender process.

12. Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed. However, it is

open for the petitioners herein to assail the Board's decision, if

any, in accordance with law, if they are so advised. There shall

be no order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

_________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J 05th July, 2021.

Note:

Furnish C.C. of the order within two days.

B/0 Tsy