KANTA BHATNAGAR, J.—In all these writ petitions similar questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. For the convenient disposal of these cases the facts of the D.B. civil writ petition No. 1640 of 1987 Hamida Khatoon vs. Union of India & others are taken in to consideration.

3. The brief facts giving rise to these cases are that petitioners husband was granted a licence to erect his stall/table first in the year 1962 and thereafter an agreement was executed between the petitioner and the respondent Railway which is Ex. 1 and by his agreement he was granted a licence for selling eatables at Marwar Junction Station. After the death of her husband the petitioner was permitted to run this stall. The petitioners licence was renewed from time to time and the last renewal was to expire on 31-3-1987 and the licence of the petitioner was terminated on 30-6-1987 (Annex. 5). Aggrieved against this termination of the licence the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Mr. Mridul, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that the termination order Annex. 5 is in serious violation of the principles of natural justice and in support thereof he has relied upon the decisions in M/s. Raj Restaurant vs. Municipal Corporation Delhi (1) and Vishwa Niwas Mishra vs. State of Rajasthan (2). Learned counsel next contended that the order suffers from the vice of discrimination as persons similarly situated have been treated differently i.e. their licences have not been terminated whereas the petitioners licence has been terminated.

5. A return has been filed by the respondents and they contested the position. It has been submitted that the licence of the petitioner has been terminated in terms of the agreement i.e. clause 39 read with regulation 716 of the Indian Railway Code. It is alleged that the petitioners services were not satisfactory. She has been repeatedly warned about her performance and it is found that the food samples of curd collected from the stall of the petitioner was found to be adulterated and a criminal case was launched against the petitioner. It has further been pointed out that at number of times she has been warned. The details thereof have been given by the respondents in their reply to the rejoinder which is on record as Schedule A. It has been mentioned that her services were found consistently unsatisfactory and she has not improved inspite of repeated warnings, so far as the petitioner was concerned she has been being warned right from 1981 to 1987 i.e. 21 times and she has been fined at number of times. In 1984, 4 times she was warned and fined. In the year 1985, 7 times she was warned and fined from Rs. 50/- to 100/-. In 1986 she was again fined to Rs. 100/- and in 1987 she was again fined to Rs. 50/-. The respondents terminated the services of the petitioner being highly unsatisfactory and the tenure of the petitioners licence had already been expired on 31.3.1987 and it was not further renewed. Therefore, she was informed on 30.6.1987 of this decision. In this back ground, learned counsel has submitted that it is not a case of breach of the principles of natural justice and it is a case of termination as a result of afflux of time and she was not granted renewal because of unsatisfactory performance.

6. In reply to the second contention of Mr. Mridul learned counsel has submitted that although persons who were similarly situated has been dealt with similarly and persons like petitioner Omwati Devi (D.B. civil writ petition No.1641/87) and Ram Kishan Agarwal (D.B. Civil writ petition No. 1642/87) fell in similar category. Therefore, their licences have also not been renewed. The other licences whose performance is not hopelessly bad their licences have not been terminated, the details thereof have been mentioned in Schedule A. Therefore, learned counsel has argued that this is not a case of hostile discrimination.

7. In order to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document