The court upheld the Railway's amended catering policy, emphasizing judicial restraint in policy-making and affirming that amendments serve public interest by enhancing food quality and accountability.

ORDER

M. Nagaprasanna, J. - The petitioner/Suvarna Karnataka Railway Catering Vendors Association (R) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Association' for short) is knocking at the doors of this Court seeking quashment of E-Open Tender for the provision of onboard catering services in trains for a period of 5 years extendable by another two years and also for quashment of several conditions in the addendum to the Catering Policy of 2017 dated 14-11-2023.

2. Heard Sri M.G.Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents.

3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-

The petitioner/Association claims to have been registered in the year 2022 and further avers that it is a conglomerate of catering contractors who have been in the Railway Catering services for the past 25 to 30 years. The catering services in the Railways are regulated by the policies issued by the Railways from time to time for the purposes of catering in the trains. The latest of the policy was issued in the year 2017 in order to improve quality of food and catering services. Pursuant to the policy subsisting, the Railways annually call for empanelment of licensees who are eligible contractors and have been granted catering contract licences. In the year 2021, the 2nd respondent issues a notice inviting expression of interest calling for empanelment of provision of onboard services in various types of trains. Under the expression of interest, 6 categories of empanelment based on trains were enunciated, which are Categorized as GTV, RSD, M1, M2, M3 and TSV. Likewise, expression of interest was also called for the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. The members of the petitioner/Association claim to have been empanelled pursuant to their registration of expression of interest. Therefore, it is not in dispute that the petitioners are empanelled catering contractors. Empanelment and awarding of contract of tender are two different aspects in terms of the policy enunciated by the Railways.

4. On 14-11-2023, the Railway Board amends the Catering Policy 2017 insofar as paragraphs 1 and 3 are concerned in terms of its addendum. Two clauses that are amended form the subject matter of present lis. They are clustering of trains and eligibility criteria for participation in tender. Pursuant to the addendum as aforesaid, the Railways have notified an e-open tender on 07-02-2024. The notification of e-open tender is called in question in the subject petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri M.G. Kumar would vehemently contend that the policy that they have brought by way of amendment on 14-11-2023 is not even followed by them. Pursuant to the policy the members of the petitioner/Association would all be affected as they have the contracts signed in the year 2019 for a particular tenure and their tenure would be affected. He would term the policy to be arbitrary by quoting that division of the policy into clusters is contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned counsel, cluster 'A' has been formed solely with the object of creating monopoly in favour of few players and clustering of premium prepaid trains with post paid lower categories is an artificial differentia. Cluster 'B', according to the learned counsel, is also riddled and hit by arbitrariness. According to him, clustering of pantry and non-pantry cars together is unreasonable. It is akin to bringing together lower and higher category trains. This is not the effect of Catering Policy 2017 and therefore, seeks quashment of addendum and all consequential actions.

6. Per contra, the learned Solicitor General of India Sri Tushar Mehta submits that his submissions may be taken as objections to the petition and would vehemently refute the submissions of the petitioner to contend that that the petitioner has no right to question the policy and this Court would not, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Arti