The court established that renewal of a contractual licence is not an automatic right and requires strict adherence to stipulated conditions, including timely submission of mandatory documents.

ORDER :

The petitionerseeks quashing of the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2025 by which the 4th Respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, terminated his tea stall contract at Platform Nos. 4/5 (Middle), Kachiguda Railway Station, and to direct renewal or extension of his licence in accordance with Clause 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016 and the Catering Policy-2010.

1.1 The facts of the case are that the 4th Respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, issued a tender notification dated 30.11.2015 inviting bids for various stalls, including Tea Stall No. 017/KCG/4-5/TS at Kachiguda Railway Station. The petitioner applied for multiple stalls and emerged as the successful bidder for the Kachiguda stall. By letter dated 11.07.2016, the 4th Respondent awarded him the contract, and pursuant to the agreement, he commenced operations with effect from 01.09.2016. Under the Railway Board’s Catering Policy-2010, as incorporated in Article 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016, the initial licence tenure was five years, with a provision for renewal for further periods of three years each upon satisfactory performance. Accordingly, the petitioner’s initial five-year term was to expire on 31.08.2021, and he asserts that he operated continuously from 01.09.2016, cleared all dues, and ran the stall to the satisfaction of both authorities and the public.

1.2 Before completion of the initial term, the petitioner applied on 23.08.2021 for renewal of the licence for a further three years under Article 3.2. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a dies-non extension was granted up to 16.04.2022. The petitioner maintains that, in normal course, the renewal ought to have carried the licence up to 16.04.2025. Instead, the 4th Respondent granted a series of short-term extensions: from 01.11.2022 to 31.01.2023 by orders dated 19.10.2022; from 01.02.2023 to 30.04.2023 by orders dated 25.01.2023; from 01.05.2023 to 31.07.2023 by orders dated 20.05.2023; from 01.11.2023 to 31.01.2024 by orders dated 01.11.2023; from 01.02.2024 to 30.04.2024 by orders dated 01.02.2024; from 01.05.2024 to 31.07.2024 by orders dated 22.04.2024; and finally from 01.11.2024 to 31.07.2025 by orders dated 26.12.2024.

1.3 In the midst of this, the 4th Respondent issued a letter dated 10.03.2022 stating that the renewal process would be initiated subject to submission of documents and an affidavit in the prescribed format under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 on Rs.100/- stamp paper. The petitioner states that the respondent demanded an affidavit that he would forego all other stalls and retain only one, citing the Railway Board’s Circular No. 22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017, which limited one person to one stall. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18604 of 2022, wherein interim directions were granted on 13.04.2022 directing the respondents to continue his stall at Platform Nos. 4/5, Kachiguda. He asserts that pursuant to these interim directions and Railway policy, his licence was extended from time to time, culminating in the extension up to 31.07.2025 by orders dated 26.12.2024.

1.4 As the extended period approached expiry, the petitioner submitted an application dated 31.07.2025 to the 4th Respondent seeking further extension in accordance with headquarters guidelines. He alleges that there was no response, and that on 01.08.2025 his tea stall was abruptly closed without notice and without consideration of his application. He then addressed a detailed representation dated 22.09.2025, invoking directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Railway Board guidelines, and South Central Rail