Alex Selestin Martin vs. Union Of India & Ors.

$~J-1 to 41
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment pronounced on: 29.05.2024



+ W.P.(C) 2501/2023 , CM APPL. 9571/2023 - STAY
(1) URMILA DEVI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 7177/2024 , CM APPL. 29978/2024 - STAY
(2) ALEX SELESTIN MARTIN ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 7180/2024 , CM APPL. 29995/2024 - STAY
(3) SHRI SANHJAY BAPU TIWATANE ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 11029/2023 - STAY
W.P.(C) 2855/2023
(4) SH. GOPAL PARSAD AGARWAL & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 7250/2023 , CM APPL. 28231/2023 - STAY
(5) RAMESH CHAND JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 9746/2023 , CM APPL. 37348/2023 - STAY
(6) LAXMAN PRASAD & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 1 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 3461/2024 , CM APPL. 14143/2024 - STAY
(7) M/S HARISHANKAR AJAY AGRAWAL AND SONS..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 17255/2024 - STAY
W.P.(C) 4235/2024
(8) BASANT KUMAR SHUKLA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 10757/2023 , CM APPL. 41680/2023 - STAY
(9) MOHAMMAD SALEEM ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 10758/2023 , CM APPL. 41683/2023 - STAY
(10) ISHWARLAL JAWARLAL JOSHI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 10763/2023 , CM APPL. 41694/2023 - STAY
(11) RITESH SIGH RAJPUT ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 10847/2023 , CM APPL. 42040/2023 - STAY
(12) RAJESH JESWANI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 11215/2023 , CM APPL. 43682/2023 - STAY
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 2 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

(13) R.K. AND SONS ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 11339/2023 , CM APPL. 44108/2023 - STAY
(14) SHIV PRASAD SAHU ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 46447/2023 - STAY
W.P.(C) 11888/2023
(15) THE NORTHERN RAILWAY BOOK STALL WORKERS
VENDORS COOPERATIVE SALE AND SUPPLY SOCIETY
LIMITED RAILWAY STATION LUDHIANA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 12541/2023 , CM APPL. 49473/2023, CM APPL.
56627/2023
(16) M/S DJ SHINGRANI AND RT PARIYANI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 12542/2023 , CM APPL. 49476/2023 - STAY
(17) SUDHAKAR TRIPATHI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 12650/2023 , CM APPL. 49876/2023 - STAY
(18) BEROJGAR HARIJAN YUVA KALYAN SAMITI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 13614/2023 , CM APPL. 53715/2023 - STAY
(19) M. ZIYAUDDIN ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 3 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 14003/2023 , CM APPL. 55367/2023 - STAY
(20) ANKIT JAIN & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 58578/2023 - STAY
W.P.(C) 14723/2023
(21) OM PRAKASH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 14837/2023 , CM APPL. 59019/2023 - STAY
(22) DILIP KUMAR SINGH & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDLA, & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 15142/2023 , CM APPL. 60494/2023 - STAY
(23) SUNIL SHUKLA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 15222/2023 , CM APPL. 60939/2023 - STAY
(24) M/S SIKSHIT BEROJGAR MUDRAN AVAM PRAKASHAN
SAHKARI SAMITI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 65047/2023 - STAY
W.P.(C) 16178/2023
(25) MS S VEER AND COMPANY GRADUATE PARTNERSHIP
CONCERN THROUGH DEEPAK JAIN GENERAL POWER OF
AUTTORNY HOLDER ..... Petitioner
versus
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 4 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAY BOARD AND ORS
..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 16446/2023 , CM APPL. 66239/2023 - STAY
(26) M BHUMIAJI AND COMPANY GRADUATE PARTNERSHIP
CONCERN ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS RAILWAY
BOARD AND ORS ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 16535/2023 , CM APPL. 66637/2023, CM APPL.
22183/2024
(27) SHASHIKANT SHUKLA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 16544/2023 , CM APPL. 66660/2023 - STAY
(28) RAJIV RANJAN RAI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
+ W.P.(C) 16558/2023 , CM APPL. 66752/2023 - STAY
(29) PRAVEEN KHATRI & ORS. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 16583/2023 , CM APPL. 66803/2023 - STAY
(30) SH. SUNIL KUMAR KOMALCHAND JAI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 205/2024 , CM APPL. 966/2024 - STAY
(31) ZIYAUDDIN MANGLORE ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 5 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

+ W.P.(C) 945/2024 , CM APPL. 3912/2024 - STAY
(32) NARESH KUMAR KINGER & ANR. ..... Petitioners
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 4938/2024 , CM APPL. 20220/2024 - STAY
(33) TIWARI AND SONS ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 5031/2024 , CM APPL. 20577/2024 - STAY
(34) GANESH PUJARI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 5597/2024 , CM APPL. 23075/2024 - STAY
(35) SMT PARMILA SHRMA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 6215/2024 , CM APPL. 25892/2024 - STAY
(36) GOPAL KRISHAN SHARMA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 6409/2024 , CM APPL. 26623/2024 - STAY
(37) SHRI ASHOK M. SHAH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 6413/2024 , CM APPL. 26632/2024 - STAY
(38) M/S MAHESHCHAND AND CO. ..... Petitioner
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 6 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 6418/2024 , CM APPL. 26647/2024 - STAY
(39) M/S MUKUNDILAL AND SONS ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ , CM APPL. 27357/2024 – STAY, CM APPL.
W.P.(C) 6574/2024
27359/2024, CM APPL. 27360/2024
(40) RUMANA SURESH SHAH ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents

+ W.P.(C) 6214/2024 and CM APPLs.25889/2024, 25891/2024
(41) MATHRA DEVI ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents

Presence
:
Mr. Neeraj Malhotra, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit
Kumar, Mr. Nimish Gupta, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Pankaj Mishra and
Mr. Ambuj Singh, Advs. for Petitioner/s in W.P.(C) 7177/2024, W.P.(C)
7180/2024, W.P.(C) 2501/2023, W.P.(C) 2855/2023, W.P.(C) 7250/2023,
W.P.(C) 9746/2023, W.P.(C) 4235/2024, W.P.(C) 10757/2023, W.P.(C)
10758/2023, W.P.(C) 10763/2023, W.P.(C) 10847/2023, W.P.(C)
11215/2023, W.P.(C) 11339/2023, W.P.(C) 11888/2023, W.P.(C)
12541/2023, W.P.(C) 12542/2023, W.P.(C) 12650/2023, W.P.(C)
13614/2023, W.P.(C) 14003/2023, W.P.(C) 14723/2023, W.P.(C)
14837/2023, W.P.(C) 15142/2023, W.P.(C) 15222/2023, W.P.(C)
16178/2023, W.P.(C) 16446/2023, W.P.(C) 16535/2023, W.P.(C)
16544/2023, W.P.(C) 16558/2023, W.P.(C) 16583/2023, W.P.(C)
205/2024, W.P.(C) 945/2024, W.P.(C) 4938/2024, W.P.(C) 5031/2024,
W.P.(C) 5597/2024, W.P.(C) 6215/2024, W.P.(C) 6409/2024, W.P.(C)
6413/2024, W.P.(C) 6418/2024 and W.P.(C) 6574/2024.
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 7 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

Ms. Garima Sachdeva, SPC alongwith Ms. Archana Surve, GP, and Ms.
Divyanshi Maurya, Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C) 2855/2023.
Mr. Sandeep V. Priya Mishra, SPC for UOI in W.P.(C) 7250/2023.
Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC for UOI in W.P.(C) 9746/2023.
Mr. Tamim Qadri, Adv. for petitioner in W.P.(C) 3461/2024 and W.P.(C)
205/2024.
Mr. Pradeep Desodya, Adv. for petitioner in W.P.(C) 16535/2023 and
W.P.(C) 16583/2023.
Mr. Ajay Bansal, Mr. Gaurav Yadav, Ms. Veena Bansal and Mr. Sourav
Jindal, Advs. for petitioner in W.P.(C) 13614/2023, W.P.(C) 16178/2023,
W.P.(C) 16446/2023 and W.P.(C) 5597/2024.

Mr. Vivek Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel alongwith Ms. Prernaa Singh,
Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C) 11888/2023.
Mr. Vijay Kumar Shukla, Ms. Nupur Shukla, Mr. Anirudh Gulati and Mr.
Yashwardhan Singh, Advs. for petitioner in W.P.(C) 4938/2024.
Mr. AkshayAmritanshu, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Samyak Jain, Adv. for
respondent in W.P.(C) 4235/2024.
Mr. Raj Kumar, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 10757/2023 and W.P.(C)
10758/2023.
Mr. Srivats Kaushal, SPC and Mr. Bharat Singh, GP for respondent in
W.P.(C) 7177/2024.
Mr. Mayank Sharma, SPC and Ms. Tanisha Verma, GP for R-1 in W.P.(C)
7180/2024.
Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC for UOI (through VC) in W.P.(C) 9746/2023.
Ms. Manika Arora and Mr. SubradeepSaha, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
3461/2024.
Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC alongwith Mr. Abhijit SinghKadyan and Mr.
Abhishrut Singh, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 2501/2023, W.P.(C)
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 8 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

12541/2023, W.P.(C) 5031/2024 and W.P.(C) 6418/2024.
Mr. Jagdish, SPC and Mr. Hussain Taqvi, Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C)
6413/2024.
Mr. Shoumendu Mukherjee, Sr. Panel Counsel along with Ms. Megha
Sharma, Ms. Akanksha Gupta, Advs. and Mr. Vedansh Anand, GP for UOI
in W.P.(C) 10847/2023.
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, SPC alongwith Mr. KautilyaBirat, GP for UOI in
W.P.(C) 12542/2023.
Mr. Shrey Sharawat, SPC along with Mr. Sahay Garg, GP and Ms. Ishita
Mishra, Ms. Priyanka Tomar, Ms. Bhanu Priya, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
11215/2023.
Ms. Sarika Singh, SPC and Ms. Manpreet Kaur, GP for respondent in
W.P.(C) 11339/2023.
Mr. Harsh Kadiyan and Ms. Aparajita Singh, Advs. in W.P.(C) 11888/2023.
Mr. Vivek Sharma, Sr. Panel Counsel, Mr. Aakash Meena, GP and Ms.
Prerna Singh, Adv. for R-1 to 3/UOI in W.P.(C) 11888/2023.
Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. KautilyaBirat, GP for
UOI in W.P.(C) 12542/2023.
Mr. Nitinjya Chaudhary, Sr. Panel Counsel along with Mr. Gokul Sharma,
GP and Mr. Rahul Mourya, Adv. for UOI in W.P.(C) 12650/2023.
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC and Mr. Jitender Kumar Tripathi, GP for
respondent in W.P.(C) 13614/2023.
Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC along with Ms. Ira Singh, Ms. Majjari Umesh,
Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 14003/2023.
Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak and Mr. Dipesh
Chaudhary, Advs. for R-1 to 3/UOI in W.P.(C) 14837/2023.
Ms. Garima Sachdeva, SPC and Ms. Divyanshi Maurya, Adv. for
respondent in W.P.(C) 14723/2023 and W.P.(C) 15142/2023.
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 9 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

Ms. Archana Gaur, SPC and Ms. Shivangi Kumar, GP for UOI in W.P.(C)
15222/2023.
Mr. Gigi C. George, Sr. Panel Counsel alongwith Mr. Amit Acharya, GP for
UOI in W.P.(C) 15222/2023.
Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC and Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, GP for UOI in
W.P.(C) 16178/2023.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC for UOI in W.P.(C) 16446/2023.
Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP in W.P.(C) 16535/2023.
Mr. Mohan Shyam, SPC, Mr. Rahul Kumar Sharma, GP for respondent in
Item No.115.
Ms. Archana Gaur and Ms. Ridhima Gaur,Adv., Mr. Kamaldeep, GP for
UOI in W.P.(C) 16535/2023.
Mr. Sushil Raaja, SPC for UOI in W.P.(C) 16558/2023.
Ms. Sarika Singh, SPC and Mr. Gokul Sharma, GP for respondent in
W.P.(C) 16583/2023.
Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, GP for respondent in W.P.(C) 205/2024.
Ms. Avshreya, Sr. Panel Counsel and Mr. Tarveen Singh Nanda, GP for
respondent in W.P.(C) 205/2024.
Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav and Ms. Mehak Wadhwa, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
945/2024.
Mr. Bhagwan Swarup Shukla, CGSC and Mr. Adarth Pandey, Adv. for UOI
in W.P.(C) 4938/2024.
Mr. Umesh Kr. Burnwal, SPC,Mr. Kapil Yadav, GP, Ms. Shivani Ghosh,
Mr. Devender Singh, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 5597/2024.
Mr. Neeraj, SPC along with Mr. Vedansh Anand, Mr. Rudra Paliwal, Mr.
Mahesh Kumar Rathore, Mr. Sanjay Pal, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
6215/2024.
Mr. Theepa Murugesan, SPC along with Ms. Sanya Bhatia, Mr. Kaushal
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 10 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

Kishor, Advs. for respondent in W.P.(C) 6409/2024.
Mr. Jagdish Chandra, SPC along with Mr. Hussain Taqvi, GP, Mr. Francis
Fernandes and Mr. Prakhar Srivastava, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C)
6413/2024.
Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC, Mr. Ravindra Vikram, GP, Mr. Karan Aggarwal
and Mr. Himanshu Gupta, Advs. for UOI in W.P.(C) 6574/2024 .


CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA


JUDGMENT

1. The present batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India has been filed inter alia seeking the following reliefs :-
a. to declare the Clause No. 5 and Clause No. 11 of the
Commercial Circular No. 61 of 2017 dated 05.09.2017 issued by the
Railway Board as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-
initio;
b. a direction to the respondents to renew the license of the
petitioners’ trolleys/stalls in terms of judgment passed by Supreme
Court of India in South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry
1
Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn.
;
c. 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 trolleys/stalls.
2. For sake of convenience, and as recorded in the order dated
10.05.2024, W.P.(C) 2501/2023 shall be treated to be the lead matter.
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 11 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

3. Briefly stated, the facts in W.P.(C) 2501/2023 are that the petitioners
are the licensees in respect of multipurpose stalls/trolleys (“ MPS ”) at
various railway stations. Petitioner no.1 is running/operating three MPS at
Bareilly Railway Station. Petitioner no. 2 is running one MPS at Moradabad
Railway Station. Petitioner no.3 is running one MPS at Haridwar Railway
Station. It is averred in the petition that the petitioners were running their
respective miscellaneous stalls/trolleys, governed by Commercial Circular
No. 96 of 2007, however, in 2017, the respondent no.2/Northern Railway
forced the petitioners to convert their stalls/trolleys to MPS in view of the
Commercial Circular No. 61 of 2017 (“ 2017 Policy ”). The petitioners and
respondent no.2 have thereafter executed the following agreements to
confirm the licence arrangement:
a. The petitioner no.1 and respondent no.2 have executed Master
License Agreement dated 31.03.2021.
b. The petitioner no.2 and respondent no.2 have executed Master
License Agreement dated 29.10.2021.
c. The petitioner no.3 and respondent no.2 have executed Master
License Agreement dated 17.08.2020.
4. As per Clause 3 of the Master License Agreements, the tenure of
petitioners’ licenses was for five years from date of conversion of
stall/trolley till 21.12.2022. The said clause expressly provides that there
will be no extension and/or renewal of the agreement. However, in view of a
force majeure event i.e., Covid-19 lockdown, vide letters dated 14.12.2022
sent by the respondent no.2, the said tenure was extended by a period of 68

1
(2016) 3 SCC 582
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 12 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

days i.e., till 27.02.2023. Vide the said letters, the petitioners were also
directed to vacate their MPS on 27.02.2023. The said Master License
Agreements and letters dated 14.12.2022 have also been impugned in
W.P.(C) 2501/2023.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has broadly contended as
under:
(i) Respondents ought to renew the license of the petitioners in

terms of judgment passed by the Supreme Court of India in South
Central Railways (supra). It is submitted that respondents are
renewing the licenses of small catering units in terms of the said
judgment however, refusing to renew the licenses of the small
miscellaneous/multipurpose stalls/trolleys. The said action of the
respondents is stated to be completely arbitrary and violative of the
petitioners’ fundamental right conferred under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India.
(ii) Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy is stated to be arbitrary inasmuch
as it extends the applicability of this policy to the existing
stalls/trolleys. It is submitted that stalls/trolleys allotted before
05.09.2017 (i.e. date of issuance 2017 Policy) should continue to be
governed as per past practice which existed prior to the 2017 Policy.
Clause 5 of the 2017 Policy is stated be violative of Article 14, Article
19(1)(g) and Article 21 of the Constitution as the same takes away the
right of renewal of license and compels the existing licensees to
compete against big companies. In support of these submissions
reliance has been placed on Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 13 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

2
Corpn. , Consumer Education & Research Centre v. Union of
3
India , South Central Railways (supra) and Vendors Cooperative
4
Society v. Union Of India
.
(iii) The petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the
respondents will permit them to sustain their business operations and
renew their licenses throughout their lifetime and for future
generations. This expectation arises from the fact that the petitioners
have never been prompted to participate in any tender processes or
submit renewal/continuation license applications since they were
initially allocated stalls/trolleys. In support of these submissions
5
,
reliance has been placed on Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar
6
and State of Jharkhand v. Brahmputra Metallics Ltd .
.
(iv) The petitioners have converted their miscellaneous stalls to
MPS units under coercion, economic duress and in view of unequal
bargaining position between Vendors/petitioners and railways. In
support of these submissions reliance has been placed on Central
7
, Delhi
Inland Water Transport Corpn. v. Brojo Nath Ganguly
8
Transport Corpn. v. D.T.C. Mazdoor Congress , Shrilekha Vidyarthi
9
(Kumari) v. State of U.P. and Sadhuram Bansal v. Pulin Behari
10
Sarkar
.

2
(1985) 3 SCC 545
3
(1995) 3 SCC 42
4
order dated 30.10.2018, passed by the Supreme Court in W.P. (C) 373/2017
5
(2006) 8 SCC 381
6
(2023) 10 SCC 634
7
(1986) 3 SCC 156
8
1991 Supp (1) SCC 600
9
(1991) 1 SCC 212
10
(1984) 3 SCC 410
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 14 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

(v) The 68-day extension of the contract provided by respondent
no. 2 due to Covid-19 is arbitrary, particularly as other MPS units in
different railway zones have been granted longer dies non period. It is
further argued that following the lockdown, foot traffic at railway
stations significantly declined, prompting the railway authorities to
reduce license fees from June 2020 until March 2022. It is submitted
that the petitioners should also be entitled to an extension of the
license period proportionate to the reduction in fees.
(vi) Reliance has been placed on decisions in Jayaswals Neco Ltd.
11 12
v. Union Of India , Malini Mukesh Vora v. Union of India , New
13
India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India , Magma Fincorp Ltd.
14
v. Orbit Motors PrivateLtd . and KLG Systel Ltd. v. Operation
15
Technology Inc.
, to submit that this court has jurisdiction to decide
the present batch of petitions.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has contended as under:
(i) A vague and a bald plea of the “use of force” is of no
consequence and the petitioners ought to have stated how the
respondents have allegedly used their position or coerced the
petitioners into signing of the License Agreement. It is emphasised
that the petitioners voluntarily submitted their applications to convert
their stalls/trolleys to MPS units to be governed by Commercial
Circular No.61 of 2017. It is submitted that the petitioners’ licenses

11
2007 SCC OnLine Del 2094
12
2009 SCC OnLine Del 1776
13
2009 SCC OnLine Del 1764
14
2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1953
15
2012 SCC OnLine Del 786
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 15 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

stand expired by efflux of time and the petitioners have no right to
compel the respondent/s to extend the License.
(ii) The 2017 Policy is legally sound and non-arbitrary, applicable
universally to stall/trolley owners without discriminatory treatment
towards the petitioners. It is emphasised that the Karnataka High
Court in judgment dated 19.02.2024 passed in W.P. (C) 24598/2023,
dismissed a similar challenge against the 2017 Policy.
(iii) The judgement of the Supreme Court in South Central
Railways (supra) is distinguishable inasmuch as in the present case
the 2017 Policy clearly provides that there shall be no renewal or
extension of licence. It is submitted that the petitioners’ licences are
governed by the 2017 Policy. It is emphasised that the petitioners
having availed of the benefits of the 2017 Policy (i.e., tenure of five
years) cannot now contest the same policy upon expiry of their
license. In support of these submissions reliance has been placed on
16
Senior Divisional Commercial Manager v. M. Mohamed Akbar
and Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v.
17
Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd.

(iv) The 2017 Policy strikes a balance between the right to
livelihood and right to equal opportunity, echoing the Supreme
Court's sentiments in South Central Railways (supra). It is
emphasised that the 2017 Policy prevents monopolisation of the
license and provides an opportunity of livelihood to similarly situated
persons who also wish to participate and obtain these licenses at the

16
2020 SCC OnLine Mad 27308
17
(2013) 5 SCC 470
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 16 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

time of re-tendering. It is submitted that the licenses for reserved
categories are exclusively re-tendered within that category, while
those for the general category undergo a similar process.
(v) There is no fundamental right to trade at a particular public
space, and the same is subject to reasonable restrictions. In support of
these submissions reliance has been placed on Dharam Singh v.
18
Municipal Corpn. of Delhi
.
(vi) The petitions are not maintainable as all license agreements
contain an exclusive jurisdiction clause which states that all disputes
arising out of the said agreements shall be adjudicated by the courts of
that particular zonal railway headquarters. Additionally, the 2017
Policy incorporates an arbitration clause at Clause 18. It is
emphasised that mere situs of the Railway Board based in Delhi,
which issued the 2017 Policy does not confer jurisdiction upon this
court. It is submitted that even if a small part of clause of action has
arisen in Delhi, the same by itself is not a determinative factor
compelling this court to decide the matter on merits. Considering the
doctrine of forum conveniens, it is submitted that, the petitioners
should approach the court which has the most proximate connection
to the disputes. In support of these submissions reliance has been
19
, Shiva
placed on Kusum Ingots & Alloys Ltd. v. Union of India
20
Industries v. Union of India and Durgapur Freight Terminal (P)
21
Ltd. v. Union of India
.

18
2005 SCC OnLine Del 1073
19
(2004) 6 SCC 254
20
2024 SCC OnLine Del 530

21
2023 SCC OnLine Del 1254
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 17 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

Analysis and Findings
7. I have perused the record and heard learned counsel for the parties.
Maintainability
8. In the present batch of petitions, the petitioners have inter alia
impugned Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy framed by the Railway
Board, seated in Delhi. They have further impugned the letter issued by the
relevant zonal railways whereby they have asked to vacate the MPS units by
a particular date. They are also seeking issuance of writ of mandamus to
compel the respondents/ relevant zonal railways to renew and extend their
license. In cases W.P.(C) 2501/2023, W.P.(C) 9746/2023, W.P.(C)
10763/2023, W.P.(C) 11888/2023, W.P.(C) 16178/2023, and
W.P.(C)16446/2023, the relevant zonal railways is the Northern Railway,
headquartered in Delhi. However, the remaining petitions concern zonal
railways with their headquarters located outside of Delhi.
9. In Jayaswals Neco (supra), the petitioner therein impugned letter of
demands raised by South East Central Railway, Chhattisgarh; they also
impugned para 1744 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, framed by
the Railway Board in Delhi. This Court held that even though no part of
cause of action has arisen in Delhi since a writ striking down para 1744 of
the Indian Railway Commercial Manual would have to be issued to the
Railway Board which is in New Delhi, from the standpoint of Article 226
(1) of the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the
authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal


W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 18 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

territorial limits of this Court. Relevant extract from the said judgment is as
under:
“55. In the light of the discussion above, it has now to be determined as to
whether in the present case this Court has territorial jurisdiction to
entertain the writ petitions. As noticed above, the question as to whether
the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition has to be
arrived at on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or
otherwise thereof being immaterial. [see Kusum Ingots (supra)
and ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra)]. It has been averred in the
petitions that paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial
Manual, which is an executive instruction issued by the Railway Board, is
the root cause for the raising of the punitive demands, which are
challenged in this petition. Mr Kaul submitted that if paragraph 1744 had
not existed then the demands challenged herein would not have been
raised. He submits that paragraph 1744 is violative of
Section 73 and 79 of the Railways Act, 1989. Without going into the
question of truth or otherwise of these averments and without examining
the merits of the challenge to paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways
Commercial Manual, it is clear that the challenge exists and that the said
paragraph 1744 forms part of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual,
which was issued by the Railway Board at New Delhi. A writ striking
down the said paragraph would have to be issued to the Railway Board
which is in New Delhi. Therefore, from the standpoint of Article 226 (1) of
the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the
authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal
territorial limits of this Court. It is true that if the case rested only on a
challenge to the demands de hors the question of validity of para 1744
then, only Article 226(2) would be applicable and this Court would not
have territorial jurisdiction as no part of the cause of action has arisen in
Delhi. But, that is not the case.”

10. In the present case, it cannot be said that this Court is devoid of the
jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petitions, which assail Clause 5 and
Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy. Considering that in many of these petitions the
concerned zonal railways is Northern Railway, headquartered in Delhi and
also considering that common issues arise for consideration in this batch of
matters, this Court deems it apposite to entertain the present petitions and
adjudicate the same on merits.
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 19 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

11. Accordingly, the present petitions are held to be maintainable.
Renewal of License
12. I have given my anxious consideration to the matter. I am unable to
agree with the contentions of the petitioners that they are entitled to renewal
of license granted to them.
13. Clause 5 of the 2017 Policy provides as under:

“5. Tenure
Allotment of all MPS shall be made for a period of only 5 years at
all categories of stations subject to fulfillment of mutually agreed
terms & conditions. There shall be no extension and renewal of
the MPS units. However, the licensee can participate in the fresh
bid, if otherwise eligible.”
14. Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy provides for applicability of the said
policy on the existing stalls/trolleys, like that of petitioners. It reads as
under:
“11 Applicability of this policy on the existing stalls.
11.1 No new allotment, renewal, extension of the Bookstall/table
(other than philanthropic), Misc. Stalls/ trolley, Chemist Stalls/corner
etc. shall be done by the railways as of now. All such existing
stalls/trolley etc. shall be allowed for conversion into MPS as the
provisions of this policy. However, in case they do not opt for
conversion into MPS, the same may be allowed to continue till expiry
of the existing agreement/arrangement in vogue.
11.2 After expiry of the current agreement period, space shall be
standardized, identified and allotted by Zonal Railways for new MPS
as per the extant procedure.
11.3 The existing Bookstall/table (other than philanthropic), Misc.
Stalls/trolley, Chemist Stalls/corner etc. shall be given an option to
convert the MPS subject to payment of License Fee as quoted by the
prospective bidder for similarly placed MPS unit at the
station/platform. The tenure of 5 years shall commence from the date
of conversion of existing into MPS.
11.4 The one-time division-wise exercise of providing option of
conversion to existing licensees and conversion of existing stalls into
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 20 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

MPS shall be completed by the Division within 90 days from the date
of issue of this policy.
11.5 This Multi Purpose Stall policy will be applicable with
immediate effect i.e. from the date of issue. This policy supersedes
Misc. Article Policy 2012, Chemist Stall Policy 2000 & 2008 and
Bookstall Policies of 2004 and their related instructions, unless
specifically referred to in this policy document.”
15. As per Clause 11, two options were given to the petitioners (existing
licensees):
a. to convert their existing stalls/trolleys to MPS; in which case,

petitioners will get a tenure of 5 years from the date of
conversion.
b. to continue with their existing stalls/trolleys till expiry of the
existing agreement/ arrangement in vogue.
16. In view of the advantages offered by the 2017 Policy, the petitioners
opted for the former option. The petitioners (in W.P.(C) 2501/2023) have
sent letters to the respondent no.2 seeking conversion of their miscellaneous
stalls/trolleys to MPS. The same are reproduced hereunder:
a. Letter sent by petitioner no.1:
“To,
The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
N. Rly./Moradabad
Sub:- Regarding the conversion of Miscellaneous stall/trolley to
Multipurpose stall as per policy of the Railway Board and renewal of
the agreement which is going to be expired on 21.01.2018 at Bareilly
Railway Station.
Sir,
With due respect that applicant is running one stall and two
trolleys for selling of Miscellaneous items. Applicant has come to
know to the knowledge that Railway Board launched the scheme for
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 21 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

the conversion of miscellaneous stall/trolley into multipurpose stalls.
In view of above policy that applicant is agreed to all conditions
and license fees. She will follow all conditions and rules if her trolleys
and stall will be convert to Multipurpose Stalls. There is no complaint
against her.
Applicant praised that one stall and two trolleys may be
converted into Multipurpose stalls. Applicant is fully agreed.
-SD-
(Urmila Devi)
Miscellaneous Contractor Bareilly Jn., Bareilly”

b. Letter sent by petitioner no.2:
“To,
The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
N. Rly./Moradabad

Sub:- Regarding the conversion of Miscellaneous stall/trolley to
Multipurpose stall as per policy of the Railway Board and renewal of
the agreement which is going to be expired on 14.12.2017 at
Moradabad Railway station Platform No.2&3.
Sir,
With due respect that applicant Nazir Hussain, Miscellaneous
contract, Moradabad is running Miscellaneous stall at Platform No. 2
& 3. The applicant has come to the knowledge that Railway board has
launched a new scheme for conversion of miscellaneous stall/trolley
to multipurpose stall. Applicant is fully agreed to convert their stalls
and trolleys as per the conversion and also pay the revised fees
alongwith arrears etc. There is no complaint against him.
It is therefore requested to your honour that applicant’s
miscellaneous stall Platform no. 2&3 may be converted to MPS stall
and agreement may be renewed which is going to expire on
14.12.2017.
Thanking you. “
c. Letter sent by petitioner no.3:
“To,
The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager
N. Rly./Moradabad

W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 22 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

Sub:- Regarding the conversion of Miscellaneous stall/trolley to
Multipurpose stall as per policy of the Railway Board and renewal of
the agreement at Haridwar Railway Station.
Sir,
With due respect that applicant M/s Khanchand & Sons,
Miscellaneous contractor, Haridwar is fully agreed to convert their
stalls and trolleys as per the policy of Railway Board. The applicant
will follow all rules and regulations of the conversion and also pay the
revised fees alongwith arrears etc.
Thank you
-SD-
(M/s Khanchand & Sons)
Miscellaneous Contractor, Haridwar”

17. The aforesaid request of the petitioners was accepted by the
respondent no.2 vide letters dated 21.12.2017. Thereafter, License
Agreements were also executed between the parties.
18. The contention of the petitioners that they were compelled to convert
their stalls/trolleys to MPS is untenable. At no stage in the last few years,
have the petitioners protested as to such conversion. It is only at the fag end
of the license tenure, that a bald plea in this regard has been raised, bereft of
any particulars. It is well settled that a party alleging undue influence or
coercion must plead the precise nature of the undue influence/coercion
exercised. In the present case, the pleadings are bereft of necessary details.
Ex facie , based on the aforementioned letters, it appears that the petitioners
voluntarily converted their stalls/trolley to MPS. They have benefited from
the 2017 Policy/Master License Agreement, specifically the five-year
tenure, and now, upon the expiration of said tenure, they seek to contest
certain clauses of the policy and request for renewal/extension, despite the
absence of provisions for renewal or extension in the 2017 Policy/Master
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 23 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

License Agreement. In Rajasthan State Industrial Development &
Investment Corpn (supra), the Supreme Court has held “where one
knowingly accepts the benefits of a contract, or conveyance, or of an order,
he is estopped from denying the validity of, or the binding effect of such
contract, or conveyance, or order upon himself.”
19. Further, the Karnataka High Court in judgment dated 19.02.2024

passed in W.P. (C) 24598/2023 and other connected matters, titled as
Gulfeeza Begum v. Union of India , while dealing with a challenge to the
same 2017 Policy, has rejected an identical challenge, observing as under:
“11. The submission of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
that the petitioner was forced to sign the new policy which depicted no
renewal after the completion is unacceptable. The petitioner or the
like are the huge beneficiaries in the new policy as it became
operational for a period of 5 years from the conversion, continues to
do business under the new policy and at the verge of completion of the
tenure is seeking to turn around and challenge the conditions of
policy. The petitioner was fully made aware that there would be no
renewal under the new policy. The petitioner cannot feign ignorance
as the letter of award quoted supra itself clearly indicated that it is for
a period of five years which was non-renewable. With eyes wide open
the petitioner has signed on the contract, enjoyed the fruits of the
contract, for five years and now wants to go back to a policy that is no
longer in existence or a Catering Policy that is not applicable to the
petitioner.”

20. The Karnataka High Court also rejected the contention of the
petitioner therein that non-renewal of license run counter to judgment of the
Supreme Court:
“12. The learned senior counsel tried to place reliance upon the
judgment rendered by the Apex Court which was with regard to
Catering Policy and not the Multipurpose Stall Policy, which
judgment, on the face of it, is inapplicable to the facts of the case. The
petitioner cannot, after enjoying the fruits of the contract till its
completion, put the clock back and take advantage by contending that
she should be brought under the 2012 or the 2017 policy again. Those
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 24 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

are Catering Policies and petitioner's contract is not under Catering
Policy, but under a different policy.”


21. The petitioners have heavily relied on the case of South Central

Railways (supra). In this case, the Supreme Court held that General Minor
Unit or Special Minor Unit licensees, who were granted licenses before the
implementation of the 2010 Catering Policy, were entitled to have their
contracts renewed under that policy, which explicitly allowed for such
renewals. In contrast, Clause 5 of the 2017 MPS Policy clearly states that
there will be no extension or renewal of MPS units; however, existing
licensees can participate in a fresh bid if they meet the eligibility criteria.
The said action/policy of the railways cannot be said to be violative of
Article 14 of the Constitution. There was no clause like Clause 5 of the 2017
Policy before the Supreme Court. The said judgment cannot be mechanically
applied in the context of the factual background of these cases. As has been
held by the Supreme Court, “One additional or different fact can make a
world of difference between conclusions in two cases even when the same
22
principles are applied in each case to similar facts”
.
22. Accepting the contentions of the petitioners would tantamount to
holding that they have a permanent, indefeasible and perpetual right to seek
extension/renewal of their licenses for an indefinite period of time. This
cannot be permitted. Accepting the plea of the petitioners would also have a
deleterious impact on the railways as the same would tantamount to holding
that once the railways has granted a license to any particular person, it is
denuded of the power to bring the license to an end, despite contractual
provision/s to the contrary. This would completely inhibit the railways from
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 25 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

introducing fresh financial/public participation models and/or offering
opportunities to another deserving set of persons to operate multi-purpose
stalls in the railways.
23. It is also noticed that in line with constitutional principles of social
welfare emphasized by the Supreme Court in South Central Railways
(supra), the 2017 Policy ensures that the rights of marginalized minorities
and members of weaker sections of society are safeguarded. Clause 9 of the
2017 Policy specifically provides for reservation in allotment for such
sections of society. The clause states:

“9. RESERVATION IN ALLOTMENT:
9.1 RESERVATION AT A1, A, B & C CATEGORY OF STATIONS
9.1.1 There shall be 25% reservation for MPS at A1, A, B & C
categories of stations with the following break up.

22
Regional Manager v. Pawan Kumar Dubey, (1976) 3 SCC 334
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 26 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

allocated to eligible individuals from those reserved categories. Individuals
from reserved categories are not competing against those from the general
category (or corporations) for the allocation of MPS units. Further, as
highlighted by learned counsel for the respondents, re-tendering of MPS
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 27 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

units serves to rectify disparities in opportunities within the same group of
individuals. This ensures a larger portion of the public (within their
respective categories) has access to adequate livelihood opportunities. In
facts of the present case, this court is unable to comprehend how the policy
decision of the railway to re-tender “all” MPS units after expiry of the tenure
would deprive right to livelihood to the petitioners. The petitioners are at
liberty to participate in fresh tender that may be floated by the railways.
They will be pitted against the individuals from the same category. For
example, a person who is below the poverty line will be competing for a
MPS unit against a person who is below the poverty line, and not against
any corporations. Granting a license in perpetuity, as is sought by the
petitioners, would be antithetical to equality of opportunity guaranteed under
the Constitution. One of the objectives set out in the directive principles in
Article 38 is that the State shall endeavour to eliminate inequalities in
opportunities; this objective is fundamental in the governance of the country
and which the State is under an obligation to realise. Hence, the argument
that the 2017 Policy violates Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of
India is unfounded and is liable to be dismissed.
25. The contention of the petitioners that they have a “legitimate
expectation” for the renewal of their licenses, lacks merit. Admittedly, the
petitioners are licensees in respect of the MPS units. It is the essence of a
licence that it is revocable at the will of the grantor. The petitioners cannot
claim a vested right entitling them to perpetual renewal of the license
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 28 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

granted to them. In Yazdani International (P) Ltd. v. Auroglobal Comtrade
23
(P) Ltd .
, it has been held as under:
“43. As rightly pointed out by Shri Nariman, a licence by definition does
not create any interest in the property. A licence only gives a right to use
the immovable property of the grantor, to the grantee. There is no transfer
of any interest in such property in favour of the grantee. On the other
hand, under the Transfer of Property Act, an interest either limited or
unlimited is created in favour of the transferee depending upon the nature
of the transfer (sale, mortgage or lease, etc.).
Under Section 60, a licence
is revocable at the will of the grantor which is the essence of a
licence. The Easements Act categorically declares that a licence can be
revoked by the grantor except in the two contingencies specified under
Sections 60(a) and (b). No such exceptions are pleaded or demonstrated
by the appellants. Therefore, it must be held that none of the appellants
have any indefeasible right of renewal either under the Easements Act or
under the abovementioned policy
.

44. However, that does not mean that a public body like the respondent
Board can arbitrarily decline to renew a licence. It is well settled by a
catena of decisions of this Court that no public body under our
constitutional system is vested with such arbitrary powers, as was pointed
out by this Court in Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport
Authority of India. If the Board decides not to renew any licence either
with respect to a class of licences or with reference to a specific area of
land, normally such a decision cannot be said to be either irrational or
arbitrary unless there are other compelling reasons to indicate that the
decision has no rational purpose to be achieved.”

26. Furthermore, in Ram Pravesh (supra), it has been held “a legitimate
expectation, even when made out, does not always entitle the expectant to a
relief. Public interest, change in policy, conduct of the expectant or any
other valid or bona fide reason given by the decision-maker, may be
sufficient to negative the “legitimate expectation”.
27. In Brahmputra Metallics (supra), it has been reiterated that doctrine
of legitimate expectation cannot be claimed as a right in itself, but can be

23
(2014) 2 SCC 657
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 29 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

used only when the denial of a legitimate expectation leads to the violation
of Article 14 of the Constitution.
28. In the present case, the licenses held by the petitioners are subject to
the terms and conditions outlined in the 2017 Policy. This policy explicitly
renders the license non-renewable. Consequently, it is beyond the purview
of this Court to mandate the renewal of a license in derogation of the 2017
Policy and in derogation of the express terms of license.
29. In the above conspectus, the challenge to Clause 5 and 11 of the 2017
Policy, is clearly unsustainable.
Extension of the License period on account of Covid-19
30. Vide letters dated 14.12.2022, the licenses of the petitioners were
extended by a period of 68 days on account of a force majeure event i.e.,
government imposed lock-down due to Covid-19. The letter dated
21.05.2020 issued by the respondent no.3/Railway Board outlines the
implementation of force majeure , as under:
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
RAILWAY BOARD

No. 2020/Catering/600/03

The Principal Chief Commercial Managers,
All Zonal Railways.
New Delhi,
Dated 21.05.2020

The Chairman & Managing Director,
IRCTC, Statesman Building,
Barakhambha Road, New Delhi.

Sub:- Implementation of Force Majeure in Catering and Vending
(MPS, Bookstalls,Chemist/Misc. Stalls etc.) contracts on account of
Covid-19 pandemic. Ref:-
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 30 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

(i) Board's Letter No. 2020/Catering/600/01/Pt.2 dated 20.05.2020
(ii) Ministry of Finance Memorandum dated 19.2.2020
(iii) WCR's letter no. WCR/HQ/C-930/Catering dated 14.05.2020
(iv) WR's Letter No. 45/15/1/Vol.II dated 13.05.2020

In view of the Ministry of Finance Memorandum dated 19.2.2020, it
has been decided to invoke Force Majeure clause for the lockdown
period due to Covid-19 in respect of static catering and vending units
on all railway stations.

Zonal Railways have sought clarification regarding the applicability
and period of Force Majeure. In this regard reference is also made to
the instruction dated 20 May 2020 vide which all stalls have been
permitted to he opened. However it is understood that there may be
variations across stations regarding the actual date of opening of the
stalls depending upon passenger traffic restoration in respect of
individual stations. Hence determination regarding the period of non-
operation of contract in respect of individual contracts and stations
may be made by the respective Zonal/Divisional Railways keeping in
view the restoration of passenger traffic pertaining to that particular
station following due diligence.

It is advised that Force Majeure clause may be implemented in
respect of all catering and vending contracts which were non-
operational on account of lockdown, irrespective of whether their
agreements incorporate the Force Majeure clause
. The period for
which the contracts were non- operational shall be treated as dies non
and the contract period shall be extended accordingly.

Necessary action may be taken accordingly.

This issues with concurrence of the Finance Commercial Directorate
of Ministry of Railways.”


31. It is evident from the perusal of the aforesaid letter dated 21.05.2020
that it takes into consideration the ground reality that there were variations
across the stations regarding the impact of Covid-19. The actual date on
which the stalls could be made operational, and the timeline for restoration
of passenger traffic, varied from station to station. It was directed that the
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 31 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

period during which license was non-operational shall be treated as dies non
period and the contract period shall be extended accordingly. As noticed
above, the determination in this regard was left to be made by the respective
zonal/divisional railways.
32. Taking into account the above, the concerned zonal/divisional railway
had worked out the dies non period based on the ground realities prevalent at
the concerned railway stations and have accordingly extended the license
period. It cannot be said that the extent of extension to which the petitioners
are entitled, has been worked out on a completely arbitrary basis. The
contentions in this regard are devoid of merit.
33. The petitioners’ reliance on a larger extension of tenure granted to
certain licensees, is misplaced. The facts and circumstances which
necessitate such action by the concerned zonal/divisional railways have to
be tested independently. Notably, the petitioners have not impugned the
aforesaid letter dated 21.05.2020 issued by the Railway Board. Instead, the
petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus to be issued to the respondents
to frame policy in a particular manner. Such a direction cannot be issued
24
under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Rachna v. Union of India
, it has
been held as under:
“48. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to frame
policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within the
realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing
circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies
but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the courts to
legislate. The courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation,
certain creative process is involved. The courts have the jurisdiction to
declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The
court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when

24
(2021) 5 SCC 638
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 32 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

dies non period, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India cannot get into intricacies of the factual situation
subsisting at each railway station to virtually exercise appellate jurisdiction
in respect of the extent of extension granted to individual licensees. It is
noticed that individual license agreement executed between petitioner and
the concerned railway authorities as well as the 2017 Policy (provisions of
which are applicable to the licensees with whom the formal execution of the
license agreement is yet to take place), contain an arbitration clause if the
petitioners are aggrieved on account of insufficiency of extension on
account of the Covid-19 situation or if they wish to claim damages on any

25
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1040
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 33 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05

account, they are at liberty to invoke the arbitration clause and initiate
appropriate proceedings. The rights and remedies of the petitioners in this
regard are kept open.
36. 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 the concerned multi-purpose stall for a very long period of
time, to enable the petitioners to make a transition and make alternative
vending arrangement/s, this Court considers it apposite to grant a period of 3
months to the petitioners (from the date of the extended license period after
taking into account the dies non period; OR from the date of this judgment,
whichever is later) to vacate the stalls in questions. It is directed
accordingly.
37. The present batch of petitions is disposed of in the above terms.
38. All pending application/s also stands disposed of.


SACHIN DATTA, J
MAY 29, 2024/ hg
W.P.(C) 2501/2023 & connected matters Page 34 of 34
Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed
By:KAMLA RAWAT
Signing Date:29.05.2024
17:54:05