JUDGMENT :Ashutosh Kumar, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. K. Shahi, the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Pradeep Kumar assisted assisted by Mr. Radhika Raman, the learned Advocates for the Railway Administration.

2. The petitioner has challenged the decision of the Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur dated 15.12.2020, whereby the license fee of the catering stalls held by the petitioner at Patna and Kiul Railway junctions have been revised at astronomical rates which has been made effective from 1.11.2018.

3. For the sake of completeness, the chart below would disclose the earlier assessed license fee and the revised license fee with respect to 13 (thirteen) stalls/kiosks held by the petitioner, a partnership firm.

4. The further prayer in the writ petition is for setting aside the order dated 22.09.2021 issued by the Chief Commercial Manager (Catering), East Central Railway, Hajipur, whereby it has been held that non deposit of the differential arrears of license fee as set out in the tabular chart shall be paid, failing which, all catering units of the licensee would be closed after completion of the renewed period and that for realization of all the dues, the licensee would be debarred and black-listed from participating in any tender floated either by Railways or I.R.C.T.C. for the Indian Railways besides taking other legal action against the licensee.

5. The major thrust of challenge to the aforesaid two communication is non-implementation and non-observance of the provisions contained in Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010. Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010 reads as hereunder:-

“18.3 At the time of renewal of licence, licence fee should be enhanced/reassessed based on actual sales turnover of the unit. Licence fee will be reassessed and revised to a minimum of 10% increased over the prevailing licence fee of the unit. To arrive at a realistic figure zonal railways will ensure that a fresh assessment of sales turnover/revenue is conducted during the peak period and lean period i.e. with the periodicity of three-three months in order to assess the actual sales turnover so as to fix the revised licencee fee. Renewal will be done for the existing licensees, if any, against the railways and payment of railway dues and arrears”.

6. A bare reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that at the time of renewal of license, licence fee shall be re-assessed and revised but subject to a minimum of 10% of increase over the prevailing license fee of the unit.

7. The Railway Administration has further been obligated, for any further hike in the license fee, to first arrive at a realistic figure by making a fresh assessment of sales turnover/ revenue during the peak and lean periods i.e. with the periodicity of three months in order to assess the actual sales turnover for fixation of the revised license fee. There is a further caveat in the aforesaid clause which says that there shall be no renewal in case the existing licensees do not withdraw court cases against Railway Administration or for payment of railway dues and arrears.

8. Mr. Shahi contends that for all the 13 units held by the partnership firm/ petitioner, the license fee has been enhanced by more than 100% but without making any assessment of sales turnover/revenue as enjoined under Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010.

9. There is no clear answer of the Railway Administration with respect to non-observance of the requirement under Clause 18.3 of the Catering Policy of 2010 before fixing the fresh license fee on renewal.

10. It would be relevant here in this context to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Senior Commercial Divisional Manager, South Central Railway and Others v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and Another; 2016 (3) SCC 582 wherein, the mandate of Article 38 of the Constitution, making it obligatory for the