[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
M/S Sai Balaji Food Corporation vs Union Of India on 17 March, 2026
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:12475]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16842/2025
M/s Sai Balaji Food Corporation, Through Its Proprietor Srinivasa
Rao Putti, S/o Madhusudhan Rao Putti, Aged 55 Yrs, Dr. No. 24-
7-8, Backside Of Rajgopalachari Market, Ramnagar, Near
Gandhinagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh - 520003.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through The Secretary, Ministry Of
Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001.
2. Indian Railway Catering And Tourism Corporation Limited
(Irctc), Through Its Group General Manager (North Zone),
Rail Yatri Niwas, Ajmeri Gate, New Delhi Railway Station
Complex, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Manager, Irctc, Regional Office, Rail Yatri
Niwas, Opp. Platform No. 1, Jaipur Railway Station, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
4. The Deputy General Manager, Irctc, Regional Office, Rail
Yatri Niwas, Opp. Platform No. 1, Jaipur Railway Station,
Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jay Prakash Bhardwaj
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Pandey for
Mr. Kamal Kishore Dave
Mr. Ashwini Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
Reserved on:- 05/03/2026
Pronounced on:- 17/03/2026
1. By way of filing the present civil writ petition, the petitioner
has prayed for the following reliefs:-
"It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that
this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed:-
A/ Quash and set aside the impugned notice/ communication
dated 30.06.2025 (Annexure P/10) passed by the
Respondent IRCTC;
B/ Direct the Respondents to permit immediate reopening
and operation of the Food Plaza at Abu Road Railway Station
forthwith.
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12475] (2 of 6) [CW-16842/2025]
C/ Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this
Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and
circumstances in case.
D/ Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed
with costs."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner firm, namely M/s Sai Balaji Food Corporation, was
awarded a franchise for operation and management of catering
services at the Food Plaza situated at Railway Station, Abu Road,
vide order dated 27.09.2012. The contract for operation and
management of catering services at Railway Station, Abu Road
was extended from time to time. On 26.05.2025, the petitioner
firm was served with a show cause notice on the ground of non-
availability of a valid FSSAI certificate and outstanding licence fee.
It was submitted that immediately upon receipt of the notice
dated 26.05.2025, the petitioner firm complied with the
requirements mentioned therein. In view thereof, the show cause
notice dated 26.05.2025 was withdrawn by the competent
authority of the respondent department vide order dated
27.06.2025.
3. Learned counsel further submitted that to the utter disbelief
and surprise of the petitioner firm, the competent authority of the
respondent department, i.e., respondent No.4, again served the
petitioner with a communication dated 30.06.2025 stating therein
that the petitioner firm had been directed to ensure timely
payment of all dues payable to IRCTC; however, it had failed to
comply with the same and an amount of Rs. 4,50,797/- was
outstanding against it. The petitioner firm was directed to deposit
the outstanding amount and also submit documents regarding FP/
ABR. In the meanwhile, the petitioner firm was not allowed to
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12475] (3 of 6) [CW-16842/2025]
operate the Food Plaza and other catering services at Railway
Station, Abu Road. It was urged that a reply to the communication
dated 30.06.2025 was submitted stating, inter alia, that the
petitioner firm may be allowed to operate the Food Plaza at
Railway Station, Abu Road at least for a period of fifteen days so
as to enable it to clear the outstanding dues. Along with the reply,
documents indicating medical examination, police verification,
Aadhaar Card, etc., of the staff working at the Food Plaza were
also annexed.
4. Learned counsel submitted that insofar as the GST
Registration Certificate is concerned, a GST certificate in the name
of Srinivasa Rao Putti (Trade Name - Sai Balaji Food Corporation),
bearing No. 08AIVPP9309G2ZJ, has been issued in favour of the
petitioner firm.
5. The only submission made before this Court by the learned
counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner firm may be
permitted to operate the Food Plaza at Railway Station, Abu Road.
It was further submitted that in case the petitioner firm is allowed
to operate the Food Plaza, it shall clear all the outstanding dues
payable to the Railways within a period of fifteen days from the
date of reopening.
6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Railways
vehemently submitted that the petitioner itself has placed on
record a copy of the agreement/contract executed between the
parties, and paragraph No. 4 thereof clearly provides that in the
event of any dispute or difference arising under the conditions of
franchisee or in connection with the franchise, the same shall be
resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12475] (4 of 6) [CW-16842/2025]
Conciliation Act, 1996. Learned counsel submitted that the
appropriate remedy available to the petitioner is to approach the
Arbitrator constituted under the provisions of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996, and therefore the present writ petition
deserves to be dismissed on the ground of availability of an
alternative remedy without entering into the merits of the case.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
the request made by the petitioner to permit it to operate the
business at Railway Station, Abu Road without clearing the
outstanding dues would not be in conformity with the terms and
conditions of the agreement executed between the parties. It was
submitted that permitting a defaulter to reopen the Food Plaza at
Railway Station, Abu Road would be detrimental to the interests of
the Railways/IRCTC, which is making all possible efforts to
improve catering services for Indian Railways for the larger benefit
of the general public using the railways as a means of
transportation.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents further drew the
attention of the Court to various documents annexed with the
reply indicating that the petitioner firm, owing to its failure in
providing satisfactory catering services and also due to
registration of FIRs against it, has been debarred from
participating in catering tenders/licences of the Indian Railways as
well as IRCTC for a period of five years with effect from
25.04.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the aforesaid conduct
of the petitioner firm clearly disentitles it from seeking the relief of
reopening and continuing catering services through the Food Plaza
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12475] (5 of 6) [CW-16842/2025]
at Railway Station, Abu Road. On these grounds, learned counsel
prayed that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
perusal of the material available on record, this Court prima facie
finds that the petitioner firm has admittedly failed to clear the
outstanding dues as indicated in the communication dated
30.06.2025 issued by respondent No.3.
In the opinion of this Court, the very prayer made in the
present writ petition seeking permission to reopen the food plaza
at Railway Station, Abu Road so as to enable the petitioner- firm
to generate revenue and thereafter clear the outstanding dues is
wholly misconceived. A party which is already in default of its
contractual and financial obligation, cannot seek relief from this
Court so as to continue or revive the very commercial activity in
respect of which the default has occurred.
10. As a matter of fact, to demonstrate bona fides and
commitment to conduct fair business, the petitioner firm is first
required to clear all outstanding dues payable to the Railways.
This Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that owing to the
unsatisfactory conduct of the petitioner firm, it has already been
debarred from participating in catering tenders of the Indian
Railways as well as IRCTC for a period of five years with effect
from 25.04.2025. The said action itself indicates that the conduct
of the petitioner- firm has been found to be inconsistent with
standards expected from a contractor dealing with public
authorities.
11. In such circumstances, equitable jurisdiction cannot be
invoked by party who itself is in breach of its obligation. Allowing
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:12475] (6 of 6) [CW-16842/2025]
the petitioner- firm to reopen and operate food plaza at Railway
Station, Abu Road would not only defeat the contractual
framework governing such commercial arrangements but would
also run contrary to the principles of fairness in public contracts.
12. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no merit
in the present writ petition and the same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
13. The stay petition and all other pending applications, if any,
also stand disposed of.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
2-divya/-
(Uploaded on 17/03/2026 at 05:11:54 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
