IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a Commission Vendor has no inherent right to operate from a specific stall, emphasizing the principal-agent relationship and the public interest in maximizing revenue.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH CHOUDHURY, J.

1. 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 this Court to assail: (i) a Termination Notice dated 29.07.2021, issued by the office of the Chief Commercial Manager, North-East Frontier Railway, Maligaon, Guwahati; (ii) a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) No. C-LMG-33-2021 dated 09.08.2021, published by the respondent North-East Frontier (N.F.) Railway and (iii) a Vacation Notice dated 31.08.2021. By the Termination Notice dated 29.07.2021, the petitioner’s services as Commission Vender had been terminated allegedly on the ground that his services were no longer required as per the Catering Policy. By the NIT no. C-LMG-39-2021 dated 10.09.2021, the respondent N.F. Railway invited e-Tenders from bidders for Catering Services at General Minor Unit (GMU) no. GHYTS-7 located at Platform no. 4/5 between Pillar no. 9-10 of Category A-1 Class for a period of five years. By the Vacation Notice dated 02.09.2021, the petitioner was asked to vacate the departmental stall located at Platform no. 4/5 between Pillar no. 9-10 of Guwahati Railway Station within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the Vacation Notice in order to avoid complication at the time of handing over of the departmental stall to the successful bidder.

2. The basis of such assailment for the petitioner is a Letter dated 22.03.2005, issued by the Assistant Commercial Manager/Catering for the Chief Commercial Manager.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that the family of the petitioner was running the business as Commission Vendor from a departmental stall located at Platform no. 4/5 between Pillar no. 9-10 of the Guwahati Railway Station since about the year 1963, after entering into an arrangement with the respondent N.F. Railway authorities. It has been stated that the father of the petitioner was appointed as a Commission Vendor in the year 1963 and after being so appointed, the petitioner’s father was running the said stall as a Commission Vendor and on his term being extended from time to time, he was running it till his death on 16.08.2004. By a Letter dated 22.03.2005, the petitioner had been informed to the effect that the Competent Authority had accorded approval to transfer the Vending Licence of the petitioner’s father, Late Suresh Dutta as a Commission Vendor for the departmental stall (tea stall) at Guwahati Railway Station under the Departmental Catering Unit to his name with retrospective effect from 01.01.2005 to 30.06.2005, subject to the terms and conditions, mentioned therein.

4. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had put his best efforts to generate maximum amount of revenue possible for the respondent N.F. Railway authorities and to that and, he had made all sincere efforts to run the business as Commission Vendor effectively and efficiently. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was running it profitably without any complaint.

5. I have heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B. Sharma, learned Standing Counsel, N.F. Railway for all the respondents.

6. Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was running the business of Commission Vendor from the location at Platform no. 4/5 between Pillar no. 9-10 of the Guwahati Railway Station on the strength of the afore-stated Letter, that is, Letter dated 22.03.2005. The business was run by the petitioner’s family since last about six decades. Prior to 2005, the petitioner was assisting his family as Commission Vendor in running the departmental stall from the same location. Mr. Dubey has, thus, contended that the petitioner was running the departmental stall since 2005 as a Commission Vendor on his own and there was no complaint whatsoever as regards his conduct and the business generated and commission earned by the petitioner from the departmental sta