Post-COVID license extension parity denied to allottees who contracted after the pandemic's onset.

The Petitioners were awarded catering licenses for railway station stalls and entered into Master License Agreements (MLAs) with the Respondents (Railways) in March 2021 or later.

These agreements, issued under the Catering Policy 2017, stipulated a fixed five-year term with an express clause stating "there will be no extension/renewal".

The Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for a license extension, arguing that the COVID-19 pandemic caused a sharp decline in footfall, preventing them from operating at full potential.

They sought parity with other licensees (e.g., *Ved Prakash Mishra v. UOI*) who had been granted extensions by the Court.

1. Whether licensees who entered into contracts *after* the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic are entitled to an extension of their license term on the grounds of reduced footfall during the pandemic.

2. Whether the principle of parity applies to grant extensions to the Petitioners based on previous court orders involving differently situated licensees.

The Court applied the principle of sanctity of contract, specifically Article 3.2 of the Master License Agreement which prohibits extensions or renewals.

Regarding the principle of parity, the Court relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in *Tarun Kumar v. Assistant Director Directorate of Enforcement*, which establishes that Article 14 of the Constitution guarantees "positive equality" and cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality or a wrong order passed in favor of others.

Furthermore, the Court distinguished the precedent in *Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India*, where transition time was granted only to pre-pandemic allottees.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioners "consciously entered into a contract" in 2021, well after the pandemic began, with full knowledge of the prevailing situation and footfall impacts.

Unlike the licensees in *Ved Prakash Mishra* (who were 2018-2020 allottees), these Petitioners could not claim they were caught off-guard by the pandemic.

Additionally, the Respondents had already granted the Petitioners concessions in the form of reduced license fees, which the Petitioners accepted; they cannot now seek further benefits beyond the contract.

The Court further clarified that previous orders granting seven-month extensions to other parties were either uncontested or did not constitute binding precedents to be applied where the facts (timing of the contract) were materially different.

The Court directly answered the issues by stating that the principle of parity does not apply because the Petitioners were not "similarly placed" to those granted relief in earlier cases, as their licenses commenced post-pandemic.

All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.