Uttarakhand High Court
23 April vs Union Of India & Others on 23 April, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:2925-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT
NAINITAL
Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 139 of 2025
23 April, 2025
M/s Vrindawan Enterprises ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Others ...Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Lalit Sharma, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the
respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Hon'ble Ashish Naithani, J.
(Per: Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
By means of this writ petition, petitioner has
sought the following reliefs:
"i) To, issue a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash
the impugned orders dated 06.06.2024, passed by
respondent no. 5 i.e. Manager/CS, Indian Railway
Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC), order
dated 26.11.2024, passed by the Chief Regional
Manager, IRCTC/RO-LKO, and the order dated
27.03.2025, passed by the Dy. General Manager/CS,
IRCTC/RO-LKO. (Annexure No. 14, 17 & 19 to the writ
petition)
ii) To, issue a writ, order or direction, in the
nature of mandamus commanding and directing the
2025:UHC:2925-DB
respondent authorities to permit the petitioner
franchise to run the Food Plaza at Kathgodam Railway
Station, Nainital, by extending their time period for
next 3 years in light of Clause 3.1 of Tender document
in addition to Clause 16.1.4 of the Catering Policy,
2010."
2. Petitioner, after successful bidding, was
granted franchise by Indian Railway Catering and
Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) to run a food plaza
at Kathgodam Railway Station in the year 2012. The
said franchise was given for a term of 9 years from the
date of commissioning of food plaza, which was
extendable for another 3 years. After expiry of the
term of franchise, IRCTC invited fresh bids for
franchise to run a food plaza at Kathgodam Railway
Station. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed
this writ petition.
3. Petitioner is challenging the orders passed
by the Manager/CS, Indian Railway Catering and
Tourism Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 5) on
6.6.2024, 26.11.2024 and 27.3.2025. By the first
order dated 6.6.2024, petitioner was informed that
term of franchise given to him will come to an end on
9.6.2024 and he was asked to ensure peaceful
handover of food plaza at Kathgodam Railway Station
to IRCTC on 9.6.2024. By the second order dated
26.11.2024, petitioner's request for extension of
franchise for further 3 years was turned down. By the
third order dated 27.3.2025, petitioner was informed
that the competent authority in IRCTC has directed to
close the operation and also to peacefully vacate the
premises of food plaza in presence of IRCTC official on
2025:UHC:2925-DB
27.3.2025.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied
upon Clause 16.1.4 of the Catering Policy, 2010, which
reads as under:
"16.1.4 Tenure of Food Plaza will be for 9
years with an extension of 3 years on satisfactory
performance and payment and payment of all dues
and arrears and withdrawal of court cases, if any."
5. Based on the aforesaid clause of the catering
policy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that since there was no complaint of unsatisfactory
performance against the petitioner during the entire
term of the franchise given to him, therefore, he has a
right of extension, in view of the aforesaid clause.
6. Learned Counsel for the respondents,
however, relied upon Clause 3.1 of the tender
document, pursuant to which franchise was granted to
the petitioner. Clause 3.1 of the tender document
reads as under:
"3.1 Term of Franchise for Food Plaza will be
(9) Nine years. The Franchise may be renewed for
another (3) three years at the discretion of IRCTC and
the decision of IRCTC in this regard shall be final. Total
tenure of the Franchise shall not exceed 12 years in
any case. IRCTC will not be obliged to assign any
reason whatsoever for not renewing the Franchise."
7. It is thus contended by learned Counsel for
the respondents that extension for 3 years is at the
sole discretion of the IRCTC and decision of the IRCTC
2025:UHC:2925-DB
in this regard is final as per the tender document and
petitioner had submitted bid knowing fully well that he
has no vested right to claim extension upon expiry of
term of 9 years. Thus he submits that the catering
policy relied upon by the petitioner will not override
the condition mentioned in the tender document.
8. We find substance in the said submission.
Since franchise was granted to the petitioner with the
express condition that he will not have any vested
right of extension upon completion of term of 9 years
and extension shall be at the sole discretion of the
IRCTC, therefore, petitioner does not have any legally
enforceable right to claim extension, even though his
performance during the period of franchise was
satisfactory.
9. Mr. Lalit Sharma, learned Counsel for the
respondents, submits that fresh bids have been invited
for the grant of franchise on 29.4.2025. He submits
that petitioner is at liberty to participate in the bidding
process and if he submits bids, his claim shall be
considered on merits.
10. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find
any reason to interfere in the matter. Writ petition thus
fails and is dismissed.
(Ashish Naithani, J.) (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
23.4.2025
Pr
PRABODH
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c5060
2ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
KUMAR
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806
ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53,
cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2025.04.30 17:17:37 +05'30'
