R.K. Refreshments And ... vs Indian Railway Catering And ...
2009 Latest Caselaw 4248 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+     W.P.(C) 12554/2009

      R.K. REFRESHMENTS AND ENTERPRISES (P)LTD. ..... Petitioner
                       Through Mr. Jayant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate with
                       Mr. Manish Bishnoi & Mr. Gautam Talukdar,
                       Advocates.
                 Versus

     INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM
     CORP. LTD. & ORS.     .....            Respondents
                     Through Mr. G.E. Vahanvati, Attorney General
with                 Mr. Gourab Banerji, ASGI with Mr. Devdatt Kamat
                     & Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Advocates.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA

                ORDER

% 21.10.2009

1. The present writ petition has been filed against show cause notice

issued by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited to the

petitioner caterer. The allegation made by the petitioner is that the

respondent-Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited is

proceeding with a pre-determined mind in view of their policy decision.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the

respondent-Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited in

past has terminated catering contracts with immediate effect and thus

foreclosed any remedy or attempt by the caterers to approach and obtain

interim orders against cancellation of catering contracts.

3. Learned Attorney General disputes the said contentions but states that any order cancelling the catering contract will not be implemented for

a period of ten days to enable the petitioners to take recourse to

appropriate remedy, if they are aggrieved.

4. The statement made by the learned Attorney General is fair and

just. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of taking the statement on

record. In case any adverse order is passed against the petitioner, the

same will not be implemented for a period of ten days to enable the

petitioner to take recourse to appropriate remedy. It is clarified that this

Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the contentions

raised by both parties.

SANJIV KHANNA, J.

OCTOBER 21, 2009 VKR