Vishakha Caterers vs Union Of India & Ors.

$~67 & 68
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of decision:07 October, 2026
# CNR No. DLHC010455852026
+ LPA 819/2026 &CM APPL. 69636/2026, CM APPL.
69637/2026, CM APPL. 69638/2026 & CM APPL.
69639/2026
Vishakha Caterers
Through its Proprietor
Sulochna Kumari
W/o Biresh Kumar
Sonpur, Ward No. 19
PO- Sonpur, District- Saran
Bihar-841101
...APPELLANT
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary
Railway Board, Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
2. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager;
Adra Division, South Eastern Railway
Adra Railway. Station Complex,
District- Purulia, West Bengal
3. Director (T & C),
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
…RESPONDENTS
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 1 of 8

+ LPA 820/2026 & CM APPL. 69643/2026, CM APPL.
69644/2026, CM APPL. 69645/2026 & CM APPL.
69646/2026
Raja Caterers
Through its Prop:
Mr. Raja Shaw
R/o 51/1D, Pottery Road,
Tangra, Kolkata,
West Bengal-700015
...APPELANT
Versus
1. Union of India, Through its Secretary
Railway Board, Ministry of Railway,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-11 0001
2. Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager;
Sealdah Division, Eastern Railway
Sealdah, Kolkata
West Bengal, India
3. Director (T & C),
Railway Board,
Rail Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001
…RESPONDENTS
Through:-
Counsel for Appellant:- Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr.
Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai,
Mr. Arjit Shrivastava and Ms.
Vaishnavi, Advs.
Counsel for the respondents:- Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 2 of 8

CGSC, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr.
Kritarth Upadhyay, Mr. Vivek Sharma
and Ms. Shreya Rakheja, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHARDWAJ
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE, ACJ
1. The prayer in the appeals is for quashing and setting aside the
th
impugned order dated 29 September, 2026, passed by the learned
Single Judge in W.P.(C) 11556/2026 with CM APPL. 53552/2026 and
another connected matter.
2. Consequential relief is prayed by the appellants to stay the
th
communication dated 30 September, 2026. A further relief is sought
by the appellants to renew the multipurpose stall licence of the
appellants for Stall No. 1 on Platform No. 2/3 at BKSC Railway
th
Station, as per the order dated 29 January, 2026, passed by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 618-620 of 2016.
3. It is the case of the appellants that they already hold a licence
st
for vending and was valid up to 31 January, 2026. The period of
validity was further extended under the orders of this Court, which has
st th
expired on 31 August, 2026/ 30 September, 2026.
4. Pursuant to the order of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
618-620 of 2016, Senior Divisional Commercial Manager and Ors. v
S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association &
Anr., the appellants claim that they are entitled for the further renewal.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 3 of 8

A specific reliance is placed on the observations made in Para 28,
which reads as under:
“28.For the reasons stated supra, this Court
cannot interfere with the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court. The Civil Appeals
are dismissed. The order dated 11.04. 2014
granting stay of the impugned order shall stands
vacated. We, however, make it clear that only
those licensees may be eligible for renewal of
their licenses who can declare on affidavit that
they do not have the license of more than one
shop or kiosk in their name or benami license at
the railway stations with periodical reasonable
increase of license fee. All pending applications
are disposed of.”
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants states
that the failure on the part of the respondents to take into account the
th
judgment of the Apex Court dated 29 January, 2026 amounts to a
denial of the constitutional right of the petitioner to earn a livelihood.
It is further urged that the aforesaid judgment was not within the
knowledge of the appellants when the licence of the appellant was
renewed by the respondent pursuant to an order passed in W.P.(C)
1172/2026 and, consequently, even if an undertaking is furnished, it is
open for the appellants to agitate their right. It is further urged that the
stall in question is yet to be auctioned by the respondent. In such an
eventuality, the relief be granted in favour of the petitioner, thereby
directing the respondents to renew the pending licence.
6. As against the above, learned counsel for the respondent states
that the issue is no more open for agitation before this court. In view
of the conduct of the appellants narrated in the impugned order dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 4 of 8

th
29 June, 2026, in compliance with which not only an affidavit of
undertaking was furnished by the appellants, but the fact that they had
to vacate the premises and surrender the possession was also well
within their knowledge. It is urged that such conduct of the appellants
in executing an affidavit and undertaking was a voluntary act, which
was recorded by this Court while passing the order in W.P.(C)
1172/2026.
7. It is further urged that the appellant has failed to demonstrate as
to how the judgement of the Apex Court at Annexure P-2 supports his
contention when the respondent has no policy to grant extension in
present set of facts.
8. It is urged by the respondent that the appellants have every right
to contest in the bidding process in case they are interested in getting
the stall allotted by competing with other similarly placed persons.
9. We have considered the respective submissions.
10. There is no doubt that the appellant is occupying the premises
in question at platform no. 2/3 at BKSC Railway Station, for which
st
the license was valid up to 31 January, 2026, which was extended
rd
again to 03 September, 2026.
th
11. The impugned communication dated 29 June, 2026 which we
reproduced as under:
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 5 of 8

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 6 of 8

12. Perusal of the said communication reflects that the petitioner,
on an earlier occasion, had approached this Court in the backdrop of
th
the fact that his license was valid up to 30 January, 2026. To get a
further extension, for the COVID period, for which he had claimed
that there was a loss of business, this Court granted an extension in
favour of the appellants to occupy the said licensed premises up to
th
30 September, 2026. It appears that, pursuant to the order of this
th
Court dated 30 January, 2026, passed in the said writ petition, the
th
appellants have already furnished an affidavit/undertaking dated 10
February, 2026.
13. In the wake of the above, the contention sought to be canvassed
by the appellants that they have an absolute right to get an extension
based on the judgment of the Apex Court, which is annexed as
Annexure-P2, cannot be said to be available at this stage of the
proceedings, when such ground was not agitated or claimed by them
in the earlier round.
14. If we look into the aforesaid conduct of the appellants in the
backdrop of the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908, the appellants claim that the judgment was not within
their knowledge. Ignorance of law by itself cannot be a ground to
agitate the claim and seek an extension. Apart from above, we hardly
see any absolute right created by the judgment at Annexure-P1 in
favour of the appellant to seek an extension of licence period as of
right when the respondents are urging that they do not have any such
policy.
15. In such an eventuality, it cannot be said that there is any attempt
on the part of the respondent to violate the fundamental rights of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 7 of 8

appellant.
16. There is one more reason for dismissal of these appeals, as the
respondents intend to treat the appellants at par with other similarly
placed persons. As and when the respondents intend to grant the
license in relation to the stall in question, it is always open for the
appellants to compete with them.
17. Such conduct of the respondent amounts to giving reasonable
treatment to the petitioner.
18. Though such an option is available, the appellant has chosen
not to participate. However, he can always participate in the auction
process of the stalls in accordance with the law in future.
19. Apart from above, when confronted, the counsel for the
appellants was unable to demonstrate as to how the order of the
th
learned Singh Judge dated 29 September, 2026 is causing prejudice
qua his legal rights.
20. The present appeals, in our opinion lack merit, therefore, the
appeal stands dismissed.
21. Pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed.
NITIN WASUDEO SAMBRE
(ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
ARUN BHARDWAJ
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 7, 2026/ ar/rk
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:AKASH
YADAV
Signing Date:17.10.2026
11:51:12
LPA 819/2026 & LPA 820/2026 Page 8 of 8