Supreme Court renewal observations do not confer an absolute right to railway-stall licence renewal.

The appellants held licences for railway-station stalls, which were valid until January 2026 and were later extended by court orders up to September 2026.

In an earlier writ proceeding, they had furnished undertakings and were aware that they were required to vacate and surrender possession.

They sought further renewal, relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association & Anr., which stated that certain licensees could be eligible for renewal subject to specified conditions.

The Single Judge dismissed their challenge to the respondents’ refusal to extend the licences; the appellants appealed.

1. Whether the appellants could seek further renewal of their stall licences by relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment, when they had not raised that claim in the earlier proceedings.

2. Whether the refusal to renew the licences violated the appellants’ legal or constitutional rights.

The Court considered Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in relation to the appellants’ failure to raise their renewal claim in the earlier proceedings; it held that ignorance of law, by itself, was not a ground to raise the claim later.

It also considered the Supreme Court’s judgment in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association & Anr., Civil Appeal Nos. 618–620 of 2016, which stated that only licensees meeting specified conditions may be eligible for renewal; the Court read that decision as not creating an absolute right to renewal.

The respondents’ ability to offer the stalls through a process open to similarly placed bidders was treated as reasonable and non-discriminatory.

The Court found that the appellants had already pursued an earlier extension and furnished undertakings in that proceeding, without advancing the renewal ground based on the Supreme Court judgment.

It therefore declined to entertain that ground in the later proceedings, observing that lack of knowledge of the judgment did not excuse the omission.

It further held that the Supreme Court’s decision did not confer an automatic entitlement to renewal, particularly where the respondents had no applicable extension policy.

Since the appellants could compete with other similarly placed persons if the stalls were offered for licence, the Court found no violation of their rights.

It dismissed both appeals and all pending applications, leaving the appellants free to participate in any future auction process in accordance with law.