The petitioner, having accepted the terms of the contract and operated under the new policy for several years, cannot now seek renewal under the earlier policy.

ORDER :

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question Commercial Circular No.61 of 2017 dated 05.09.2017 issued by the respondents/Railways depicting as Multi Purpose Stall (MPS) Policy 2017 (‘MPS Policy’ for short) and has sought quashment of certain license agreements entered into between the petitioner and the respondents/Railways and further as a consequence there under, seeks a direction by issuance of a mandamus to renew licenses of the stalls of the petitioner in terms of earlier policy.

2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:-

The petitioner is a licensee from the hands of the respondents/Railways in Platform No.6 Yeshwanthpur Railway Station; Platform No.2 at Krishnarajapuram Railway Station and at Platform No.2 at Cantonment Railway Station, Bengaluru. The Ministry of Railways to streamline management of miscellaneous stalls/trolleys at par with other catering and vending units at different category of stations brings out a commercial circular in Commercial Circular No.96 of 2007. The said commercial circular undergoes a change in Commercial Circular No.35 of 2010 notified on 21-07-2012. The petitioner here comes into the picture when it was awarded a contract of miscellaneous stalls at Platform No.6 of Yeshwanthpur Railway Station and other platforms detailed hereinabove. This Circular permitted renewal of licence on expiry of the term of 5 years to any awardee of the contract. The petitioner on 31-01-2011 was awarded a contract for a period of 5 years which had commenced from 15-02-2011. Therefore, the said contract had come to an end on 14-02-2016. The petitioner accepted the terms of the contract and began to vend in the stalls at the platforms that were allotted to it in terms of the said contract.

3. After expiry of the term of the contract, the contract of the petitioner stood renewed but not under the earlier policy but under a policy that was notified in terms of certain orders passed by the Apex Court. The Policy was MPS Policy notified on 05-09-2017. The petitioner accepted terms of the policy and was awarded the contract afresh on 05-02-2018. The letter of award of contract depicted that the contract is awarded in terms of the policy dated 31-10-2017. This policy did not contain any clause of renewal on expiry of the term. The petitioner on account of onset of COVID-19 was also granted 282 days of extension which would come to an end on 09-11-2023. The petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court by filing the present petition on 27-10-2023 contending that the petitioner is entitled for renewal of a further three years in terms of the Catering Policy of 2010 under which it was awarded the contract earlier.

4. Heard Sri Jayakumar S.Patil, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Gauthamdev C.Ullal, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents.

5. The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil appearing for the petitioner would vehemently contend that the petitioner is entitled for extension/renewal of license in terms of the earlier policy as under the present policy the petitioner was asked to sign on the dotted line which did not contain the clause for renewal. He would also submit that the High Court of Delhi in identical circumstances, calling in question an identical act of the respondents, has continued the contract in terms of the earlier policy when the present policy came to be challenged before the High Court. He would seek identical relief at the hands of this Court to the petitioner as well.

6. On the other hand, the learned CGC Sri Gauthamdev C.Ullal representing the respondents would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the petitioner has enjoyed the award of contract, in terms of the policy of 2017 and is now wanting to turn around and challenge the subsequent action of entering into license agreement in terms of the new policy. The petitioner is not entitled to renewal under the earlier policy of 2010 and is bound by the t