The petitioner, as a commission vendor, has no legal right to assert that he can continue to act as a commission agent from the stall located at Platform no. 1 and to assail the decision of the respondent NF Railway authorities to allot the said stall on a license basis pursuant to a tender process in the interest of better administration and for the purpose of earning higher revenue.

JUDGMENT :

By instituting the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought to invoke the extra-ordinary and discretionary jurisdiction of the Court to assail – [i] a Termination Notice dated 28.07.2021, issued by the respondent no. 4; [ii] a Notice Inviting Tender [NIT] dated 09.08.2021, published by the respondent Northeast Frontier [NF] Railway; and [iii] a Vacation Notice dated 02.09.2021. By the Termination Notice dated 28.07.2021, the petitioner’s services as Commission Vender had been terminated purportedly pursuant to an order of the Chief Commercial Manager, NF Railway, allegedly on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. By the NIT no. C-LMG-00-2021 dated 09.08.2021, the respondent NF Railway invited e-Tenders from bidders for provision of Catering Services at General Minor Unit [GMU] no. GHYTS-3 at Platform no. 1 between Pillar no. 24 & 25 of the Guwahati Railway Station, for a period of 5 [five] years. By the Vacation Notice dated 02.09.2021, the petitioner had been asked to vacate the stall [South Indian Stall and its extension counter]’ located at Platform no. 1 and Platform no. 4/5 of Guwahati Railway Station within a period of 10 [ten] days from the date of receipt of the Vacation Notice.

2. The basis of assailment is an Agreement for Commission Vendor executed on 09.03.2020 between the competent authority in the respondent NF Railway on behalf of the President of India on one part, and the petitioner on the other part.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner was running the business as Commission Vendor from the same stall located at Platform no. 1 of the Guwahati Railway Station since about more than five decades, after entering into arrangement with the respondent NF Railway authorities. After the death of his predecessor and especially after inability on the part of the petitioner’s mother to run the business due to old age, the petitioner started running the business of Commission Vendor. It was in that connection, the Agreement for Commission Vendor [‘the Agreement’, for short] was entered into on 09.03.2020 which had a validity period of 5 [five] years from the date of execution.

3.1. The petitioner’s case is that during the earlier period as well as after execution of the Agreement, the petitioner had put his best efforts to generate substantial account of revenue for the respondent NF Railway authorities and he had left no stone unturned to run the business effectively and efficiently. It is the contention of the petitioner that the business had been running profitably as reflected from the statements mentioning the amount of revenue, appended as an annexure, the petitioner had generated for the respondent NF Railway authorities. To buttress such contention, the petitioner has stated that he as a Commission Vendor of the stall located at the Platform no. 1 of the Guwahati Railway Station which had been named as ‘South Indian Snack Bar’, had generated a revenue of Rs. 59,11,582/-during the period from January, 2019 to December, 2019 for which the petitioner had earned a commission of Rs. 6,56,575/-. The revenue generated during the period from January, 2020 to December, 2020, took a dip at Rs. 16,02,321/-due to advent of Covid-19 and the reason for such lesser revenue generation was obvious as during that period, lockdown was enforced and regular train services were severely affected.

3.2. The petitioner has also referred to the Catering Policy 2007, the Catering Policy 2010 and the Catering Policy 2017, formulated by the Railway Board, as well as a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and another, reported in [2016] 3 SCC 582, to support his contention that the respondent NF Railway authorities could not have resorted to such actions as had been taken by the Terminati