Delhi High Court
M/S Deepak & Co. vs Union Of India & Ors on 20 September, 2016
$~23 to 25 & 27 to 31
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3188/2016 & C.M.No.13660/2016
M/S DEEPAK & CO. ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dharmish Thanai with
Mr.Himanshu Pathak, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
+ W.P.(C) 4542/2016 & C.M.No.18992/2016
M/S GOEL & GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Mehta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
+ W.P.(C) 4812/2016 & C.M.No.20084/2016
M/S DEEPAK AND CO ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dharmish Thanai with
Mr.Himanshu Pathak, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Joydeep Mazumdar with
Mr.Debojyoti Bhattacharya and
Mr.Rohit Dutta, Advocates for
Northern Railways.
W.P.(C) 3188/2016 & connected matters Page 1 of 6
+ W.P.(C) 4824/2016 & C.M.No.20108/2016
N/S DEEPAK & CO ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Dharmish Thanai with
Mr.Himanshu Pathak, Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
+ W.P.(C) 5268/2016 & C.M.No.21934/2016
M/S A S SALES CORPORATION ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Mehta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
+ W.P.(C) 5356/2016 & C.M.No.22313/2016
M/S A KA ROY ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Mehta with Mr.V.K.Ohja,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
Mr.R.V.Sinha with Mr.A.S.Singh,
Advocates for R-4.
W.P.(C) 3188/2016 & connected matters Page 2 of 6
+ W.P.(C) 5379/2016 & C.M.No.22429/2016
M/S GOEL & GOEL ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Mehta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
+ W.P.(C) 5660/2016 & C.M.No.23447/2016
M/S R M MEETAL & SONS ..... Petitioner
Through Mr.Jitender Mehta, Advocate.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through Mr.Jagjit Singh with Mr.Preet Singh,
Advocates for Railways.
% Date of Decision: 20th September, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J: (Oral)
1. Present writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to the
respondents to permit the petitioners to operate their stalls situated at
different Railway Stations in Delhi, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Punjab and
Uttrakhand till fresh bids are invited.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the licences were
granted to the petitioners to operate and manage the said stalls initially for a
fixed period. They further contend that the said licences were renewed from
time to time. They also contend that the Railways has been issuing circulars
whereby extensions have been granted till finalization of the new contracts.
They, however, state that recently the petitioners have been asked to vacate
the stalls.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners refer to and rely upon the order
dated 13th June, 2016 passed by the Lucknow Bench in M/s K.B.Jeelani
Fruit & Catering Services thru. Proprietor & Anr. Vs. Union of India
thru. Secretary, Ministry of Railway Baroda & Ors., Misc. Bench
No.13906/2016.
4. Admittedly, the licenses issued by the respondent-Railways in favour
of the petitioners have expired by efflux of time.
5. This Court in W.P.(C) No.6007/2016, wherein a similar relief had
been sought, had observed as under:-
"......that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as the
petitioner's contract has expired by efflux of time on 1 st August,
2013.
It is always open to the Railways not to have the
Automatic Vending Machines at all and use the space vacated
for some other purposes. The order dated 2nd June, 2016
referred to by the petitioner is an interim order and not a final
order. Consequently, its precedentary value is extremely
limited. This Court also finds that the said order did not pertain
to tender of AVMs but stalls.
In any event, the petitioner has no legal right to state
that he should not be asked to vacate especially after his
contract has expired by efflux of time.
Consequently, the present writ petition and the
applications are dismissed with no order as to costs."
(emphasis supplied)
6. Even the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in M/s. Surya
Food and Agro Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Divisional Railway Manager NCR & 6
Ors., Writ-C No. -20519/2016 decided on 5th May, 2016 has held as under:-
" In the present case, there is clearly no pre-existing legal
right. If, as in the present case, the railway authorities have
borne in mind the interest of general public and considered it
inappropriate to grant a further extension having due regard to
the overall performance of the petitioners, this Court would not
be justified in issuing a direction to the enforcement of a non-
existing contract : non existing in the sense that the term of the
contract came to an end by efflux of time.
No legal rights, as such, are created by the Circular of
2013 which engrafts only an enabling provision for the zonal
authorities to consider the grant of ad hoc extension where
disruption of a particular facility will result in detriment to the
public.
For these reasons, we find no merit in the petition. The
petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs."
(emphasis supplied)
7. In view of the aforesaid judgments, this Court is of the opinion that
the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
8. In M/s K.B. Jeelani Fruit & Catering Services (supra), it was held
that as the respondents were agreeable to allow the petitioners therein to
continue with stalls till arrangement is made, they were granted the relief.
However, in the present proceedings, learned counsel for the Railways state
that they are not agreeable to extend the period of contact of the petitioners
or to allow the petitioners to continue with the stalls.
9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners contend that the stand
of the Railways in the present case is violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.
10. It is settled law that where a benefit has been illegally or irregularly
extended to someone else, a person who is not extended a similar illegal
benefit cannot approach the Court for extension of a similar illegal benefit.
11. The Supreme Court of India in Union of India vs. M.K. Sarkar;
(2010) 2 SCC 59 has held that if such a request is accepted, it would amount
to perpetuating the irregularity. It was further held that when a person is
refused a benefit to which he is not entitled, he cannot approach the Court
and claim that benefit on the ground that someone else has been illegally
extended such benefit.
12. This Court is further of the view that the circulars do not confer any
right of extension, as has been sought to be urged by learned counsel for the
petitioners, as the contracts of the petitioners have already expired by efflux
of time.
13. The unutilised portion of the licence fee deposited by the petitioners
shall be refunded by the Railways within a period of four weeks.
14. With the aforesaid observations, the present writ petitions and the
applications are dismissed.
MANMOHAN, J
SEPTEMBER 20, 2016
KA
