The petitioner cannot claim renewal of a catering license under the new policy due to failure to meet stipulated conditions outlined in previous judicial decisions.

ORDER :

M. Dhandapani, J.

The denial to renew the catering license issued to the petitioner on the basis of the Catering Policy, 2017, (for short ‘Policy 2017’ is put in issue before this Court through the present petition.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that it was awarded a license by the 3rd respondent to operate, manage and supply catering services on a General Minor Unit (for short ‘GMU’) at platform Nos.2 & 3 at Madurai Railway Station on 14.11.2016, which was for a period of five years commencing from 21.12.2016 and ending on 20.12.2021. A Master License Agreement was executed between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent on 31.03.2017.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that on 22.03.2020, due to the imposition of national lockdown due to COVID-19 pandemic, there was an instant cessation of all activities across railway stations all over India and, therefore, the GMU was non-operational for the period from 22.02.2020 to 24.12.2020. It is the further case of the petitioner that the said period was treated as ‘dies non’ and the contract was accordingly extended upto 24.9.2020 on the existing terms and conditions. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the license agreement between the petitioner and the 3rd respondent is governed by the Catering Policy, 2010 (for short ‘Policy 2010’).

4. It is the further averment of the petitioner that renewal of license agreement is governed by the provisions under the Catering Policy, 2010. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the renewal is governed by clause 16 of the Policy, 2010, which provides that in respect of GMUs, allotment is to be made for a period of five years with a provision for renewal after every three years on satisfactory performance and payment of all dues and arrears and withdrawal of court cases. The very same provision is also available under Article 3 of the Master License Agreement.

5. It is the further averment of the petitioner that based on the stipulations in the license agreement and Policy, 2010, the petitioner applied for renewal of license vide letter dated 27.7.2021. However, the said representation was rejected by the 3rd respondent citing Article 20.1 and also Policy, 2017, which alone is applicable which did not have provisions for renewal of contracts. However, on the consideration of livelihood, one stall alone could be renewed while other stalls have to be surrendered.

6. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the principal of renewal of only one license per licensee under Policy, 2010 was evolved by the Supreme Court in a series of litigation surrounding the question of renewal of licenses of minor units. It is the further averment of the petitioner that Policy, 2010 provided for management of major catering units to be managed by IRCTC, while the minor units were awarded by way of contract. Based on the provisions of Policy, 2010, while South Central Railway granted an initial extension of three years to the existing minor units, but proceeded to call for fresh tenders thereafter, which was put in issue before the Andhra Pradesh High Court in WP (C) No.15072/2013 wherein the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in favour of the Association, against which appeal was filed, which was also dismissed and the Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court ended in favour of the Association. However, while disposing of the above appeal, the Apex Court observed that those licensees, who file an affidavit with a declaration that they do not have the license of more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami license alone, would be eligible for renewal.

7. It is the further averment of the petitioner that the 1st respondent published the Co