[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Delhi High Court
Vandana Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors on 25 February, 2026
Author: Amit Bansal
Bench: Amit Bansal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 18th February, 2026
Judgment pronounced on: 25th February, 2026
+ W.P.(C) 18000/2025 with CM APPL. 74507/2025 & CM APPL.
11376/2026
VANDANA MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Abhinav
Kumar, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and
Mr. Ambuj Kumar Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr.
Sarthak Rana, Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 18035/2025 with CM APPL. 74595/2025
CHANDRA MAULL MISHRA .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Abhinav
Kumar, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and
Mr. Ambuj Kumar Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Farman Ali and Mr. Usha
Jamwal, Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 1727/2026 with CM APPL. 8425/2026 & CM APPL.
11235/2026
BHAVESH JASWANI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 18000/2025 & connected matters Page 1 of 11
By:VIVEK MISHRA
Signing Date:25.02.2026
17:30:13
Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Abhinav
Kumar, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and
Mr. Ambuj Kumar Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr.
Sarthak Rana, Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay,
Advocates.
+ W.P.(C) 2258/2026 with CM APPL. 10864/2026
SMT. DHANDEI DEVI .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Abhinav
Kumar, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and
Mr. Ambuj Kumar Singh, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr.
Sarthak Rana, Ms. Gurleen Kaur
Waraich and Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay,
Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
JUDGMENT
AMIT BANSAL, J.
1. All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed seeking a direction to
the respondents to renew the catering license awarded by the respondents in
favour of the petitioners.
2. Since all the present writ petitions involve a common issue, all these
petitions are being disposed of by way of a common judgment.
3. With the consent of the parties, W.P.(C) 18000/2025 is treated as the
lead matter. Accordingly, the facts of the said petition are being considered
for the purpose of this judgment.
4. On 15th June 2019, the respondents issued a Letter of Award in favour
of the petitioner for allotment of catering stall at platform no.1 of Haridwar
Railway Station. Subsequently, a Master License Agreement dated 5th March
2021 was entered into between the petitioner and the respondents in terms of
the Catering Policy dated 27th February 2017. The term of the license as per
the Master License Agreement was for a period of five years with effect
from 5th March 2021. The Master License Agreement also provided that
there would be no extension or renewal of the license term.
5. The grievance of the petitioner is that during the period of COVID-19
pandemic, there was a sharp decline in the footfall at the railway stations.
Therefore, the petitioner could not run her catering stall to its complete
potential. Accordingly, apart from the reduced license fee granted by the
respondents, the petitioner seeks extension of her license period. The reliefs
sought by the petitioner are set out below:
"(i) To issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction to
declare the impugned Master License Agreement dated 05.03.2021
executed between Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio and to quash/set aside the
impugned Master License Agreement;
(ii) To issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other Writ or direction to
declare the Clause No. 11 of the Commercial Circular No. 20 of2017
"Catering Policy 2017" dated 27.02.2017 issued by Respondent No. 3 as
illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio and to
quash/set aside the Clause No. 11 of the impugned Commercial Circular
No. 20 of2017 "Catering Policy 2017" dated 27.02.2017 issued by
Respondent No.3;
(iii) To issue the Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ,
order or direction to the Respondents to extend the benefit of extension of
license period to the Petitioner in proportionate to the reduce license fee
during the COVID 19 pandemic period and as per the benefit given to the
catering contractors of Hyderabad division as well as to the A.H.
Wheeler and co. Pvt. Ltd
(iv) To grant relief to the petitioner as granted by this Hon'ble court
vide its judgment/order dated 26.05.2025 in W.P. (C) No. 7323/2025 to
the similar kind of licensees."
6. The reliefs sought in all the present writ petitions are identical.
7. At the outset, counsel for the petitioners limit the reliefs in the present
petitions only to the reliefs sought in prayer clauses (iii) and (iv) set out
above [prayer clauses (iv) and (v) in W.P.(C) 2258/2026].
8. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners places reliance on
various orders passed by this Court from time to time where extension of
seven months has been granted to similarly placed persons, illustratively, the
judgment dated 26th May 2025 passed by a coordinate bench in W.P.(C)
7323/2025 titled Shaila Devi v. Union of India & Ors. and orders passed by
this bench in W.P.(C) 297/2026 titled Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing
Federation Ltd v. Union of India & Ors. on 9th January 2026 and in W.P.(C)
1567/2026 titled M/s Sai Traders v. Union of India & Ors. on 6th February
2026.
9. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents in
W.P.(C) 18000/2025 and W.P.(C) 1727/2026, wherein it is stated that the
reliefs sought by the petitioners are beyond the term of the Master License
Agreements, which clearly provided that the license is for a period of five
years and no extension/ renewal thereof is permissible. It is further stated
that in the present matters, the Master License Agreements were executed
between the petitioners and the respondents in 2021, i.e., much after the
nationwide lockdown was imposed due to COVID-19 pandemic in the year
2020.
10. It is also stated that the respondents have already granted concessions
in the license fee to the petitioners during the term of their Master License
Agreements taking into consideration the reduced footfall on account of
COVID-19 pandemic and hence, the petitioners are not entitled to any
renewal/ extension of the license period.
11. Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents, submits that the petitioners in the present writ petitions cannot
claim parity with other licensees, whose license agreements were executed
during or prior to the COVID-19 period.
12. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on
record.
13. A tabular representation of the particulars of the petitioners in the
present petitions and the term of the license granted in their favour is set out
below:
S. Details of the Details of the Date of Master Date of Date of
No. case Petitioner License commencement Expiry
Agreement
WP(C) GMU Catering 05.03.2021 05.03.2021 04.03.2026
18000/2025 Stall at Platform
1. Vandana No.1 of Haridwar
Mishra v. Railway Station.
UOI & Ors.
WP(C) GMU 09.12.2021 20.02.2021 19.02.2026
1727/2026 Number/Stall
2. Bhavesh Number Stall
Jaswani v. No.7 on Platform
UOI & Ors. 2/3 at Shadulapur
Station.
WP(C) GMU at Platform 05.03.2021 05.03.2021 04.03.2026
18035/2025 No.1 Moradabad
3. Chandra Railway Station
Mauli
Mishra v.
UOI & Ors.
WP(C) Special Minor 26.03.2021 13.04.2021 12.04.2026
2258/2026 Unit
Smt. Number/Name
4. Dhandei Stall No.01 (PF.
Devi v. UOI No.1, Near
& Ors. Enquiry Office) at
Ballia station.
General Minor 01.07.2021 01.08.2021 31.07.2026
Unit Stall No.1 at
PF. No.1 (In
Midd-Rly
Building),
Kaptanganj
station.
14. It is evident from the table set out above that the Master License
Agreements of the petitioners were executed in March 2021 or thereafter,
i.e., much after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020.
15. It is also an undisputed position that the Master License Agreements
clearly provided that the term of the license is for a period of five years and
there would be no extension or renewal thereof. The relevant clause of the
Master License Agreement is set out below:
"ARTICLE-3: TENURE OF THE AGREEMENT
3.1 The Tenure of the Agreement will commence on the Commencement
Date, as provided in Article 1.1, as Five (5) years only w.e.f. 05.03.2021
and subject to the provisions of Article 9and Article 17 herein below, if
not terminated.
3.2 There will be no extension / renewal."
[emphasis supplied]
16. The petitioners have placed reliance on the judgment dated 30 th May
2024 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 6771/2024 titled
Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India & Ors. and other connected
petitions. In the said batch of petitions, the following reliefs were sought by
the petitioners:
"a. to declare the Clause No.11 of the Commercial Circular No.20 of
2017 dated 27.02.2019 ("Catering Policy 2017") issued by Railway
Board as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio.
b. to declare impugned Licence Agreement executed between
petitioner and concerned respondent as illegal, arbitrary,
unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio and also set aside the License
Agreement as regards its tenure is concern;
c. a direction to the respondents to renew the license of the
petitioners' catering units in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court
of India South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit
Juice Stalls Welfare Assn.
d. a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of extension of
license period to the petitioners in proportionate to the reduced license
fee during the Covid-19 pandemic period and as per the benefit given to
other units."
17. In the aforesaid batch of petitions, the petitioners were allottees of the
years 2018, 2019 and 2020, i.e., before the onset of the COVID-19
pandemic and the same is evident from a reading of paragraph 4 of the said
judgment. The benefit of dies non period of different periods was given by
the respondents to the petitioners.
18. By way of the judgment in Ved Prakash Mishra (supra) and other
connected petitions, the aforesaid batch of petitions were dismissed as the
Court did not find any merit in the said petitions. However, taking note of
the fact that the catering stalls were operating for a long period, in order to
enable the petitioners to make a transitioning alternate vending arrangement,
this Court granted three months' time to the petitioners to vacate the catering
stalls. Paragraph 30 of the said judgment is set out below:
"30. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present
petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, since the
petitioners have been operating these minor catering units for a
significant period of time to enable the petitioners to make a transition
and make alternate vending arrangement/s, this Court considers it
apposite to grant a period of 3 months to the petitioners from the date
of extended license period after taking into account the dies non
period; OR from the date of this judgment, whichever is later) to vacate
the catering units in question. The same shall be subject to payment of
usual license fee. It is directed accordingly."
[emphasis supplied]
19. As is evident from the aforesaid extract, no extension in the license
period was granted by the Court. It was only for the purposes of enabling the
petitioners therein to make a transition and avail alternate vending
arrangements, a period of three months was granted to the petitioners.
20. The aforesaid judgment was taken in appeal before the division
bench, which was dismissed on 3rd September 2024. The SLP filed by the
petitioners therein was also dismissed. However, the three months' time
granted by the coordinate bench of this Court was extended by the Supreme
Court by a further period of four months.
21. The petitioners herein claim that the benefit of seven months'
extension that was granted to the petitioners in the said batch of petitions be
also granted to them.
22. In my considered view, the benefit of extension granted to the
petitioners in the said batch of writ petitions cannot be granted to the
petitioners in the present petitions for the reasons discussed hereinafter.
23. The petitioners in Ved Prakash Mishra (supra) and other connected
petitions were all allottees prior to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic,
whereas the petitioners in the present case are allottees much after the onset
of COVID-19 pandemic, i.e., March 2021 and thereafter. The petitioners
herein consciously entered into a contract with the respondents in the year
2021 knowing fully well the prevailing situation as well as the impact of the
COVID-19 pandemic on the footfall at the railway stations.
24. The respondents have already granted relaxation in the quantum of the
license fee as well as other benefits taking into account the reduced footfall
at the railway stations on account of the COVID-19 pandemic. This has been
duly acknowledged by the petitioner in Ground (H) of the writ petition.
Having obtained the benefit of the reduced license fee, the petitioners cannot
seek extension of the license period.
25. It is not the case of the petitioners that the railway stations where they
have their catering stalls were shut down during the period of their license
and they could not operate their stalls. It is also borne out from the record
that none of the petitioners made any representations to the respondents
during the period when their operations were hit by the COVID-19
pandemic. The present petitions have been filed seeking extension of the
license term only towards the fag end of their license.
26. In various writ petitions filed before this Court, including Shaila Devi
(supra), Gujarat Co-operative (supra) and M/s Sai Traders (supra) relied
upon by the petitioners, extensions have been granted to persons similarly
placed as the petitioners. However, the said judgment/ orders have been
passed in uncontested writ petitions wherein the respondents had not raised
contentions that have been raised in the present petitions. Therefore, these
judgment/ orders would not constitute binding precedents. Merely because a
certain benefit has been granted by a Court to a certain set of petitioners
wrongfully, other persons cannot claim the said benefit as a matter of right.
In this regard, a reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme
Court in the judgment dated 20th November 2023 in SLP (Crl.) No.
9431/2023 titled Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of
Enforcement. Paragraph 26 of the said judgment is set out below:
"19. It is axiomatic that the principle of parity is based on the
guarantee of positive equality before law enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution. However, if any illegality or irregularity has been
committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals, or a
wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke
the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or
multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for passing similar
wrong order. Article 14 is not meant to perpetuate the illegality or
irregularity. If there has been a benefit or advantage conferred on one
or a set of people by any authority or by the court, without legal basis
or justification, other persons could not claim as a matter of right the
benefit on the basis of such wrong decision."
[emphasis supplied]
27. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon an order dated 5 th August
2024 passed by the division bench of this Court in LPA 746/2024 titled Ms.
Kaushalya Meena v. Union of India & Ors. In the said order, the division
bench, taking note of the fact that other similarly placed persons have been
granted extension of time of three months to vacate their catering stalls,
granted three months' time to the appellant therein. Once again, in my view,
the petitioners herein are not entitled to the benefit of the said order as the
same was passed on the principle of parity. However, in the present
petitions, the respondents have clearly demonstrated that the principle of
parity will not apply as the petitioners herein are not similarly placed as the
petitioners who were granted the benefit of seven months.
28. In light of the discussion above, I do not find any merit in the
aforesaid writ petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed.
29. All pending applications also stand disposed of.
AMIT BANSAL
(JUDGE)
FEBRUARY 25, 2026
Vivek/-
