SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Bom) 13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & B.P. COLABAWALLA JJ.
Central Railway Caterer’s Association and another - Petitioners
Vs.
Union of India and others - Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2753 OF 2013, 653, 652 OF 2014, 2745, 3942 OF 2015 WITH NOTICE OF MOTION NO.491 OF 2015
Decided On : 8.01.2016.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr Y.S. Jahagirdar, Sr. Counsel i/b M/s Vidhi Partners for Petitioners in WP No.2753 of 2013.
Mr K. Talukdar i/b M/s M.P. Rege and Co. for Petitioners in WP No.2745 of 2015.
Mr T.J. Pandian for Respondents in WP Nos.2753 of 2013, 652 of 2014 and 653 of 2014.
Mr Anil Singh, ASG alongwith Mr Suresh Kumar for Respondents in WP No.2745 of 2013.
Mr K. Talukdar i/b Mr Krishna Baruah for Petitioners in WP Nos.652 and 653 of 2014.
Mr K. Talukdar i/b Mr Siddharth Wakade for Petitioners in WP No.3942 of 2015.

The court emphasized that the fixation of the value of the tender is within the purview of the executive, and courts have limited role to play unless the action of the executive is proved to be arbitrary or unreasonable. The court also highlighted the importance of the doctrine of 'level playing field' in tender processes, subject to public interest.

Headnote:

Railway Catering Policy - Challenge to classification and categorization of Railway Stations - Catering Policy 2010 - Sections 18 and 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 - Article 226 of the Constitution of India

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the Railway Catering Policy 2010, specifically the classification and categorization of Railway Stations based on their annual earnings, and the technical criteria, evaluation, and selection process contained in the tender document dated 9th October, 2013. The petitioners argued that the classification and categorization of Railway Stations based on annual earnings were illegal, arbitrary, and unjust, affecting the members of Petitioner No.1 who were originally allotted small static catering units.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the challenge to the classification and categorization of Railway Stations on the basis of annual passenger earnings had been in existence since the time of the Catering Policy 2000 and 2005. The court upheld the classification and categorization, citing previous judgments and dismissing the challenge to the Catering Policy 2010. The court also rejected the petitioners' objections to the terms and conditions of the tender document, stating that they were not arbitrary, discriminatory, or unreasonable.

Issues: The main issue was the challenge to the Railway Catering Policy 2010, specifically the classification and categorization of Railway Stations based on their annual earnings, and the technical criteria, evaluation, and selection process contained in the tender document dated 9th October, 2013.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the classification and categorization of Railway Stations on the basis of annual passenger earnings was not arbitrary or capricious, and the terms and conditions of the tender document were imposed to sub-serve larger public interest and ensure good quality service to the passengers.

Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the Writ Petitions, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment :

B. P. Colabawalla J.

1. Rule. Respondents waive service. By consent of parties, rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.

2. By these Petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioners challenge the Railway Catering Policy 2010 to the limited extent that the classification and categorization of Railway Stations based on their annual earnings are per se illegal, arbitrary and unjust and have no nexus with the actual sales and/or footfalls on the catering units on such Railway Stations. The Petitioners also challenge the technical criteria, evaluation and selection process contained in the tender document dated 9th October, 2013 issued by the Railways for provision of refreshment rooms.

3. It is the case of the Petitioners that as a result of classification and categorization of Railway Stations on the basis of their annual earnings, the members of Petitioner No.1 (in Writ Petition No.2753 of 2013) who were originally allotted small static catering units have now become major static units and have thereby been affected by certain onerous, unjust and arbitrary evaluation criteria in Section B Chapter III of the tender document dated 9th October, 2013. It is in these circumstances that the Petitioners are before us in our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the sake of convenience we shall refer to the facts in Writ Petition No.2753 of 2013.

4. The brief facts to decide the present controversy are that Petitioner No.1 is a Public Trust registered under sections 18 and 19 of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and is an organization that represents various catering licensees providing Railway catering services to the Central Railways. Petitioner No.2 is the secretary of Petitioner No.1. Respondent No.1 is the Union of India through the Ministry of Railways. Respondent No.2 is the General Manager, Central Railways and the person in-charge of the entire Central Railways. Respondent No.3 is the Chief Commercial Manager, Central Railways and looks into the day-to-day commercial affairs of the same. Respondent No.4 is the Executive Director (T & C) who formulates the catering policy, circulars etc. under instructions from the Railway Board and Respondent No.5 is Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Bhusawal Division, Central Railways who has issued the tender document dated 9th October, 2013 for refreshment rooms. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 are in the employment, supervision and control of Respondent No.1.

5. The Indian Railways have the largest network of Railways divided into 17 zones and approximately 8056 Railway Stations. The Railway's main activity is plying goods and passengers and the main source of revenue is passenger ticket fares, freight and transportation charges etc. Apart from providing the aforesaid services, the Railways also provide catering services to its passengers and ensure that good and wholesome food is supplied to the passengers using its services.

6. From time to time, the Railway Board issued catering policies to achieve the aforesaid objective. Presently, the Catering Policy 2010 issued under Commercial Circular dated 21st July 2010 is in force. Between 2005 to 2010 Railway Catering Services were managed by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC). In 2010 Respondent Nos.1 to 4 issued a catering policy wherein the entire catering work of Mobile and Major units of the Indian Railways was transferred back to the Railways and all the 17 zones of the Railways were entrusted with the said work.

7. As far as Writ Petition No.2753 of 2013 is concerned, the members of Petitioner No.1 are holding refreshment rooms at Kandwa Railway Station, Manmad Railway Station, Shegaon Railway Station, Akola Railway Station and Badnera Railway Station. The aforesaid Railway Stations are 'A' category Stations. It is the case of the Petitioners that the actual sales of the members of Petitioner No.1 vary from Rs.2,500/- to Rs.5,000/- per d














































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top