High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
DEEPAK MISRA
LAXMINARAIN DEOHARE - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
W. P. 4224 Of 1999
Decided On : 11/04/1999
CATERING LICENCE - SELECTION OF CATERERS - JUDICIAL REVIEW - Locus Standi - Petitioners not having applied for grant of licence initially, whether have locus standi to challenge selection process - Legitimate expectation - Whether can be invoked - Public interest - Whether can be invoked - Judicial review - Scope and extent - Whether Court can interfere with selection process - Policy guidelines - Whether binding on selection committee - Arbitrary and unreasonable selection - Whether can be interfered with.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged the grant of catering licenses for platforms 1, 4, and 5 of the Itarasi Railway Station on various grounds, including that the selection process was flawed and that the selected caterers were not suitable. The petitioners had not applied for the licenses initially but argued that they had a legitimate expectation to participate in the selection process and that the selection of the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the selection process as they were potentially aggrieved persons who would have been eligible to apply for the licenses if the selection process had been conducted properly. The Court also held that the policy guidelines issued by the Railways were binding on the selection committee and that the selection of the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable as it was not based on the criteria set out in the policy guidelines.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the selection process. 2. Whether the selection process was flawed. 3. Whether the selection of the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the petitioners had locus standi to challenge the selection process as they were potentially aggrieved persons who would have been eligible to apply for the licenses if the selection process had been conducted properly. 2. The Court held that the selection process was flawed as it was not conducted in accordance with the policy guidelines issued by the Railways. 3. The Court held that the selection of the respondents was arbitrary and unreasonable as it was not based on the criteria set out in the policy guidelines.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the catering licenses granted to the respondents. The Court also directed the Railways to issue a fresh advertisement for the licenses and to conduct the selection process in accordance with the policy guidelines.
( 1 ) BOTH the writ petitions being interlinked and inter-connected were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. In W. P. No. 3297/99 the challenge is to the grant of catering licences relating to Platform Nos. 1, 4 and 5 of the Itarasi Railway Station on various grounds, whereas the challange in W. P. No. 4224/99 is on a limited spectrum.
( 2 ) BEFORE the crux in both the writ petitions is uncurtained, it is necessary, nay, requisite, to unfurl and unfold the factual backdrop as that portrays a different scene altogether. It is well known that the Railway is a large organisation and the Itarasi Railway Station is one of the biggest junction and caters to public at large. To maintain the quality of supply of food and to get the best caterer the railway administration published an advertisement on 26-9-1997 in National Mail Bhopal inviting applications for award of a catering licence for stalls to be situated at platform Nos. 1,2,3,4 and 5. Many applications submitted their applications with necessary documents and an interview was held in respect of the candidates in question but one Robin Jyothiraj James could not receive the letter of interview on due date for which he visited this Court in W. P. No. 83/99. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and upon persual of the documents this Court directed as under :--"so far as the petitioner is concerned, he approached this Court, by means of the present petition, on 5th February, 1999 and we consider the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is entitled for being interviewed so to have opportunity of participation in the process relating to the catering licence. So far as the candidates who have not approached this Court till today are concerned, they are not entitled for being called for interview, as it is a settled principle of law thatthose who sleeps over their right they are not entitled for the sympathy of the Court. In view of above, we direct the respondent No. 1, Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial Branch), Bhopal for arranging for the interview of the petitioner who shall appear before the respondent No. 1 along with the application duly accompanied by the certified copy of this order on 15th February, 1999 during the hours 10 to 12 A. M. in his office and he would be given in writing a date, time and place for interview and the entire process regarding selection of catering stall licence at Itarsi Railway Junction shall be finalised by the concerned persons by 15th of March, 1999 without fail and a copy of the finalised proceeding shall be filed before this Court on 22nd March, 1999. "after this direction was issued, the railway administration conducted an interview in respect of Robin Jyoti James. The Selection Committee which was constituted in accordance with the policy in vogue did not find Robin Jyoti James suitable. It is worth noting that platforms Nos. 1, 4 and 5 were reserved for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes but the Committee did not find anyone suitable for the platform No. 1 as well for the platform Nos. 4 and 5. At this juncture, certain complaints were sent to the Ministry of Railways and the Railway Board. As a result of which a direction was given for review of the matter and accordingly, a Senior Grade Administrative Officers Committee was constituted and the selection was made. The said selection committee selected respondent No. 3, Smt. Kanti Arya in respect of the plateform Nos. 4 and 5 and Smt. Suchita Uike, respondent No. 4 in respect of the plateform No. 1. This selection is the subject-matter of challenge in W. P. No. 3297/99. As far as W. P. No. 4224/99 is concerned the challenge is to the non-selection of the petitioner therein at the first instance.
( 3 ) BEFORE I advert to deal with the various documents, minutes of discussion brought on record and contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties, I would deal with W. P. No. 4224/99. Mr. J. P. Sanghi, Mr. S
Mahendra Kumar Tiwari v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Renusagar Power Co.
Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar
M. M. Parikh I.T.O. v. Navanagar Transport and IndustriesLimited
Referred to : Raunaq International Limited v. IVR ConstructionLimited
Tata Cellular v. Union of India
State of U.P. v. Dharmander Prasad Singh
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.