Satender Kumar And Others vs Union Of India And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 3257 Del

*         HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI


+         Writ Petition (Civil) No. 202 of 2009


                                Judgment reserved on: March 31, 2009

%                             Judgment delivered on: August 19, 2009


1.   Satender Kumar
     S/o Late Sh. Pyare Lal
     Prop. M/s. Praye Lal & Sons
     Vending Contractor
     Rohtak Railway Station.

2.   Smt. Sarita Rani
     W/o Late Sh. Radha Kishan Verma
     Prop. M/s. Laxmi Devi & Sons
     Vending Contractor
     Rohtak Railway Station.

3.   Smt. Sheela Rani
     W/o Late Sh. Atam Prakash Wadhwa
     Vending Contractor
     Sonepat Railway Station.

4.   Sh. Satpal Singh
     S/o Late Sh. Rajinder Bir Singh
     Prop. M/s. Sujan Singh & Sons
     Vending Contractor
     Karnal Railway Station.

5.   Sh. Ram Gopal
     S/o Sh. Babu Lal
     Partner M/s. Babu Lal Ram Gopal
     Vending Contractor
     Shahdara Railway Station.


WP (C) No.202/2009                                         Page 1 of 10
 6.   Ms. Raj Rani
     D/o Late Sh. Kalicharan
     Prop. M/s. Kalicharan Rajrani
     Vending Contractor
     Muzaffar Nagar Railway Station.

7.   Sh. Praveen Kumar
     S/o Late Sh. Ram Chander
     Prop. M/s. Harpyari Devi Praveen Kumar
     Vending Contractor
     Panipat Railway Station.

8.   Sh. Jogender Singh
     S/o Late Sh. Budh Singh
     Prop. M/s. Budh Singh Jogender Singh
     Vending Contractor
     Meeruti City Railway Station.

9.   Sh. Naimuddin
     S/o Late Sh. Hazi Mehrazuddin
     Partner M/s. S.D. & Sons
     Vending Contractor
     Ghaziabad Railway Station.

10. Sh. Uday Singh
    S/o Late Sh. Hussaini Lal
    Vending Contractor
    Delhi Main Railway Station.

11. Sh. Ram Prasad Bhatt
    S/o Shri Sahaj Ram
    Vending Contractor
    Delhi Main Railway Station.

12. Sh. Rajesh Chopra
    S/o Late Sh. Raj Kumar Chopra
    Prop. M/s. G.P. Chopra & Sons
    Vending Contractor
    Ballabhgarh Railway Station.


WP (C) No.202/2009                            Page 2 of 10
 13. Sh. Ram Kishore Saxena
    S/o Late Sh. Banwari Lal Saxena
    Prop. M/s. Kunji Lal Ram Kishore Saxena & Sons
    Vending Contractor
    Faridabad Railway Station.

14. Sh. Kishan Kant
    S/o Late Sh. Ayodhya Prasad
    Vending Contractor
    Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway Station.

15. Sh. Hardayal Gupta
    S/o Late Sh. Raghunath Gupta
    Vending Contractor
    Delhi Sarai Rohilla Railway Station.             ...Petitioners

                     Through    Mr. Amarjeet Singh Bedi with
                                Mr. Mahipal Singh, Advs.

                     Versus

1.   Union of India
     Service to be effected through
     Secretary, Ministry of Railways
     Government of India
     Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.

2.   The Railway Board
     Ministry of Railways
     Rail Bhawan, New Delhi
     Through its Chairman.

3.   M/s. Indian Railway Catering &
     Tourism Corporation Ltd.
     9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building
     Parliament Street
     New Delhi.
     Through its Director/Chairman.                  ...Respondents



WP (C) No.202/2009                                          Page 3 of 10
                       Through Mr. Gaurab Banerji, Sr. Advocate with
                              Mr. Saurav Agarwal and Mr. Dinesh
                              Kumar, Advs.

Coram:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MADAN B. LOKUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                    Yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                 Not necessary

3. Whether the judgment should be reported
   in the Digest?                                     Not necessary


MADAN B. LOKUR, J.

Although the Petitioners have made three prayers in the writ

petition, during the course of submissions learned counsel for the

Petitioners confined the writ petition to only one prayer - for an

appropriate writ quashing Tender No. 2008/NR/NWR/02 and the steps

initiated pursuant thereto for allotment of stalls occupied by the

Petitioners in the North Zone railway stations.

2. Petitioners No. 1 to 10 belong to "reserved" categories such

as Scheduled Caste, Other Backward Castes, women, minorities,

widows, etc. Petitioners No. 11 to 15 belong to the "general" category.

All the Petitioners are licencees of stalls in railway stations in the North

Zone.

3. The Respondents issued a tender notice in the national

newspapers on 28th November, 2008 inviting bids from reputed

organizations engaged in the catering business for management of stalls

in several railway stations. In so far as Petitioners No. 1 to 10 are

concerned, they are licencees of more than one stall each and are also

running trolleys in some railway stations. The tender notice invited bids

for all but one stall of each of the Petitioners No. 1 to 10. None of the

trolleys of Petitioners No. 1 to 10 are the subject matter of the tender

notice or the writ petition. However, in so far as Petitioners No. 11 to

15 are concerned, all their stalls (1 or 2 each) are the subject matter of

the tender notice.

4. According to the Petitioners, they have all been licencees of

their respective stalls for the last several decades and there is no reason

why their licences should now be terminated and the stalls auctioned.

5. The Respondents have pointed out that Petitioners No. 1 to

10 have been given commercial protection in as much as they have all

been allowed to retain one stall each and none of their trolleys are

touched. As such, they can have no legitimate grievance if the

remaining stalls are auctioned out. These Petitioners cannot claim to

hold permanent licences or licences for a multiple number of stalls.

However, Petitioners No. 11 to 15 fall in a different or "general"

category and that is why their stalls are subject to public auction. These

Petitioners are entitled to bid for these and other stalls which are being

auctioned. It is submitted on behalf of the Respondents that in this

manner, none of the Petitioners are suffering any irreparable loss.

6. Apart from these broad facts, what is more important is that

the Respondents have a Catering Policy, the latest being the Catering

Policy - 2005. Paragraph 15.2.1 of this Catering Policy specifically

states that the tenure of licences for reserved categories will be three

years and the licences of these categories will be renewed every three

years subject to satisfactory performance. Admittedly, the licences of

the Petitioners (except that of Petitioner No.9) are valid till 31st October,

2005. The licence of Petitioner No. 9 came to an end on 31st October,

2008. However, all the Petitioners have been allowed to retain their

respective stalls on an ad hoc basis on payment of the requisite licence

fee. Paragraph 15.6.3 of the Catering Policy - 2005 states that there will

be no renewal or extension of the licence except in the case of reserved

category licencees.

7. The relevant extract of paragraphs 15.2.1 and 15.6.3 of the

Catering Policy, 2005 read as follows: -

"15.2.1 xxx xxx xxx

Tenure of the licences for reserved categories will be three (3) years and licences of these categories will be renewed every 3 years on satisfactory performance. At the time of renewal of the licences of reserved categories at „A‟, „B‟ and „C‟ category stations or fresh bid for the unit license fee should be enhanced based on actual sales turnover of the unit subject to a minimum of 10% increase over the prevailing license fee of the unit. Renewal will be done for the existing licencees only on withdrawal of the court cases by the licensees, if any, against the railways and payment of all railway dues and arrears.

                      xxx        xxx         xxx

           15.6.3     There would be no renewal or extension after

expiry of the contract and fresh tender should be called and finalized well before the expiry of the existing contract. However, licences of reserved category licensees will be renewed every 3 years on satisfactory performance. Renewal will be done for the existing licencees under the reserved category only on withdrawal of the court cases by the licensees against the railways and payment of all dues and arrears."

The Catering Policy - 2005 was revised on 21st December, 2005 but no

material change, in so far as the present case is concerned, was brought

about.

8. The question that really arises for our consideration is

whether the Respondents could invite applications for allotment of stalls

on a licence basis through a public advertisement. Simply put, our

answer to this question is in the affirmative but the objection of the

Petitioners is that since they have been licencees of these stalls for

several years if not decades, they will suffer a tremendous financial loss

if they are now ousted therefrom. Apart from this, their submission is

that they are rightfully entitled to continue in possession in view of the

Catering Policy - 2005.

9. As already mentioned above, Petitioners No. 1 to 10 are not

substantially disturbed in as much as each one of them continues to be

in possession of one stall (apart from several trolleys). They are not

being thrown out of business by the Respondents in any manner

whatsoever. It is only the additional stalls of these Petitioners that are

being auctioned out pursuant to the tender notice. It is, therefore, not

correct on their part to say that they are being thrown out of business.

These Petitioners No. 1 to 10 do not have any right, and indeed none has

been shown to us, to permanently occupy as many as stalls as they

desire, to the exclusion of everybody else. Since these Petitioners No. 1

to 10 belong to certain "reserved" categories, the Respondents have

sufficiently protected their interests and, in our opinion, their grievance

in this regard is completely unjustified.

10. As far as Petitioners No. 11 to 15 are concerned, they belong

to the "general" category and have no special right to continue to retain

the stalls for which they have licences. They are merely licencees and

on the termination of the licence period, their stalls are being auctioned

in terms of the tender notice. These Petitioners No. 11 to 15 are entitled

to bid not only for these stalls but for all other "general" category stalls

which are the subject matter of the tender notice.

11. As noted above, the licences of the Petitioners have come to

an end on 31st October, 2005 (except Petitioner No. 9 whose licence has

come to an end on 31st October, 2008). None of the Petitioners can

claim, and indeed they have not claimed, an absolute right to continue to

be licencees of the stalls that they have in their possession. It is well

settled that when the duration of a licence comes to an end and it is not

renewed, no special right for continuation inheres in any licencee. In

our opinion, since the Petitioners have not been able to establish any

right in their favour, there is no valid justification for quashing the

tender notice.

12. There is no merit in the writ petition, which is dismissed. No

costs.

                                       MADAN B. LOKUR, J



August 19, 2009                        SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
kapil

Certified that the corrected
copy of the judgment has
been transmitted in the main
Server.