IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
Poorna Caterers - Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition No: 28631/2024
Decided On : 03-02-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 19(1)(g) - Writ petitions challenging the termination of Train Side Vending License due to non-operation during Covid-19 - Petitioners claimed extension of license based on force majeure clause - Court found that the petitioner was entitled to an extension of the license for the non-operative period of 696 days. (Paras 1, 2, 18)
(B) Force Majeure - The court held that the force majeure clause applies to the period of non-operation due to the pandemic, allowing for an extension of the license period. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the order terminating their Train Side Vending License, arguing that their services were non-operational due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and sought an extension based on the force majeure clause. (Paras 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the petitioners were entitled to an extension of their license for the non-operative period of 696 days, allowing them to operate until 18.10.2026. (Paras 18, 21)
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioners were entitled to an extension of their license due to the pandemic and the applicability of the force majeure clause. (Paras 2, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the force majeure clause should be enforced, allowing for an extension of the license period for the days the petitioner did not operate due to the pandemic. (Paras 13, 18)
Result: Writ petitions disposed of in favor of the petitioners.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. challenge to termination of license (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. background of the catering services (Para 3) |
| 3. cancellation of services due to covid-19 (Para 4) |
| 4. respondents' counter on license terms (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's consideration of license operation (Para 12 , 13) |
| 6. enforcement of force majeure clause (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. extension of license granted (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. disposal of second writ petition (Para 21 , 22) |
ORDER :
Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda, J.
1. Both these writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by different petitioners, claiming identical relief, as such, I find it expedient to decide both the writ petitions by common order, since the issue involved in all the writ petitions is one and the same.
W.P.No.28631 of 2024
2. This writ petition is filed challenging the action of Respondent Nos.2 & 3 in issuing the impugned order vide IRCTC/SCZ/ZO(CATG)/104/2021/ZO/SCZ dated 16.10.2024 directing the petitioner herein to stop the operations i.e. Train Side Vending (TSV) License to manage on Board Catering Services on SC-DHNE Section (including GDW-RC Sub-section) over South Central Railway from 16.12.2024, without considering the request of the petitioner for extension of license for period of contract in which petitioner’s services were non-operational due to Covid-19 Pandemic, as arbitrary, illegal, unjust, contrary to principles of natural justice and violative of petitioner’s right guaranteed under Articles 14 & 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India .
3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner’s firm is engaged in the business of Food Catering Services. The 2nd respondent issued E-Tender No.IRCTC/SCZ/1/NIT-14/TSV/2019/01 dated 10.08.2019 for Train Side Vending (TSV) License to manage on Board Catering Services on SC-DHNE Section for 5 years. The 3rd respondent issued a Letter of Award dated 16.10.2019 in favour of the petitioner. Thereafter, an agreement dated 26.10.2022 was entered into between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent and providing TSV services as per the terms of the Agreement.
4. While things stood thus, due to the onset of Covid-19 Pandemic, the 2nd respondent vide letter dated 20.03.2020 cancelled all the trains and closed catering/vending services across all sections in the country till 31.03.2020. Following the instructions, the petitioner had shut down all catering operations. However, the respondent imposed force majeure clause and did not renew the TSV License of the petitioner on the ground that the services were non- operational due to Covid-19.
5. The respondents have extended the contract period to various other licensees in the country by invoking the force majeure clause and that the period of contract was extended for the period that the services were non- operational due to Covid-19. Since the period of license was getting expired by 21.11.2024, the petitioner submitted letter dated 10.07.2024 to the respondents requesting to extend the License Period by another 2 years. The petitioner was under an impression that the period of license would be extended for a further period of 2 years on par with other licenses throughout the country. Instead of considering the extension of petitioner’s license, the 3rd respondent issued proceedings IRCTC/SCZ/ZO(CATG)/104/2021/ZO/SCZ dated 16.10.2024 directing the petitioner herein to stop all operations from16.12.2024 in the said TSV section and surrender all the materials and records pertaining to the said tender. Challenging the proceedings IRCTC/SCZ/ZO(CATG)/104/2021/ZO/SCZ dated 16.10.2024, the present writ petition is instituted.
6. Respondent Nos.2 & 3 filed counter affidavit and vacate stay petition in I.A.No.3 of 2024 denying material allegations. In Paragraph No.6, it is submitted that, the period of license is for 5 years in terms of Clause 5.1 of Section -1 of General Information in E-Tender dated 10.08.2019. The tenure of the license shall be five years from the d
The court affirmed that the force majeure clause allows for the extension of a Train Side Vending License due to non-operation during the Covid-19 pandemic.
Legal agreements explicitly stating non-renewability clauses are enforceable, denying claims for extensions based on perceived unequal treatment resulting from a pandemic.
Scope of judicial review when examining policy of Government is to check whether it violates fundamental rights of citizens or it is opposed to provisions of Constitution or opposed to any statutory ....
Point of law: Nature of dispute between the members of the petitioners association and the Railways cannot be brought within the ambit of the dispute resolution clause of the Agreement, i.e., Article....
Tender-based catering licenses under 2017 policy non-renewable per agreement terms; older code inapplicable excluding tenders; no perpetual right after prior binding judgments dismissing renewal clai....
The COVID-19 pandemic constituted a force majeure event, and the lockdown was not attributable to the fault of the allottees. Therefore, the DTIDC, being a public corporation, was directed to adopt a....
The court established that renewal of a contractual licence is not an automatic right and requires strict adherence to stipulated conditions, including timely submission of mandatory documents.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.