IMPORTANT POINT
The court affirmed that a Commission Vendor has no inherent right to operate from a specific location, and the Railway authorities can terminate the vendorship and initiate a tender process for public interest.

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 28.07.2021, issued by the respondent no. 4; (ii) a Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) no. C-LMG-39-2021 dated 09.08.2021, published by the respondent Northeast Frontier (N.F.) Railway and (iii) a Vacation Notice dated 02.09.2021. By the Termination Notice dated 28.07.2021, the petitioner’s engagement as Commission Vender had been terminated purportedly pursuant to an order of the General Manager, N.F. Railway and Additional General Manager, N.F. Railway, allegedly on the ground of unsatisfactory performance. By the NIT no. C-LMG-39-2021 dated 10.09.2021, the respondent N.F. Railway invited e-Tenders from bidders for provisioning of Catering Services at Special Minor Unit (SMU) no. GHYTS-9 located at Platform no. 6/7 between Pillar no. 3-4 by earmarking it for ‘War Widow/Freedom Fighter/Widow of Railway Employees who have been dislocated/displayed due to their land having been taken over by Railway for its own use’ category A-1 Class for a period of 5 (five) years. By the Vacation Notice dated 02.09.2021, the petitioner had been asked to vacate the departmental stall located at Platform no. 6/7 between Pillar no. 3-4 of Guwahati Railway Station within a period of ten days from the date of receipt of the Vacation Notice.

2. The basis of such assailment for the petitioner is a Letter dated 15.12.2006, 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. 6/7 between Pillar no. 3-4 of the Guwahati Railway Station since about the year 1961, 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 1961 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 in the year 1977. After the death of his father, the petitioner’s mother, Shefali Dey was appointed as a Commission Vendor in the year 1977 and during the tenure of his mother’s Commission Vendorship, the petitioner used to assist his mother in running the departmental stall as a Commission Vendor. When the petitioner’s mother expired in the year 2005, the petitioner was informed by a Letter dated 08.12.2006 in response to his application dated 06.04.2006 that on deposit of an amount of Rs. 250/- as security money along with a surety bond, the Vending Licence standing in the name of his mother would be transferred to his name and in that event the petitioner would have to execute an agreement for Commission Vendor on a non-judicial stamp paper. Subsequently, by a Letter dated 15.12.2006, the petitioner had been informed to the effect that the Competent Authority had accorded approval to transfer the Vending Licence of the petitioner’s mother, Late Shefali Dey as a Commission Vendor for the departmental stall (tea stall) at Guwahati Railway Station under the Departmental Catering Unit to his name with immediate effect, 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 end, 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 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 respon