$~68

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision:17.12.2025

+ W.P.(C) 19019/2025 & CM APPL. 79242/2025

MS RAJKUMAR JAISWAL CANTEEN AND CONTRACTOR

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Prateek Raj and Mr. Ashutosh

Bhardwaj, Advocates

Mob: 9873388834

Email: advocatespalegal@gmail.com

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Ms. Saumya Tandon, CGSC with Mr

Gaurav Singh, Adv. (Through VC)

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

MINI PUSHKARNA, J. (Oral):

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with respect to the General Minor Unit (“GMU”)/Stall No. 134/2019, at Platform No. 04/05 at Prayagraj Railway Station. It is submitted that the Letter of Award dated 12^th August, 2020 was issued by the respondent – Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, North Central Railway, Prayagraj, by way of which, the said catering stall was allotted in favour of the petitioner, for a period of five years, w.e.f., 20^th December, 2020. The said License, as per the Master License Agreement dated 21^st May, 2021 is set to expire on 19^th December,

2025.

2. It is submitted that this Court, on previous occasions, has granted relief in similar matters, wherein, extension has been granted, even beyond

the “dies non” period. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 07^th March, 2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2953/2025, titled as “Sadeek Ali Versus Union of India and Ors.”, wherein, further extension of 7 months has been granted to the petitioner therein. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to other similar orders passed in other petitions.

3. Thus, it is submitted that the license period of the petitioner in the present case also, ought to be extended for another period of 7 months and that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking on affidavit before this Court, that the petitioner will vacate the stall in question, on expiry of the extended period of 7 months.

4. Issue notice.

5. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

6. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that vide judgment dated 30^th May, 2024, in the case of W.P.(C) 6771/2024, titled as “Ved Prakash Mishra Versus Union of India and Ors.” and other connected matters, this Court with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, has held as follows:

“xxx xxx xxx

9. In Jayaswals Neco (supra), the petitioner therein impugned letter of demands raised by South East Central Railway, Chhattisgarh; they also impugned para 1744 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, framed by the Railway Board in Delhi. This Court held that even though no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi since a writ striking down para 1744 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual would have to be issued to the Railway Board which is in New Delhi, from the standpoint of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal territorial limits of this Court. Relevant extract from the said judgment is as under:

“55. In the light of the discussion above, it has now to be determined as to whether in the present case this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions. As noticed above, the question as to whether the Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition has to be arrived at on the basis of the averments made in the petition, the truth or otherwise thereof being immaterial. [see Kusum Ingots (supra) and ONGC v. Utpal Kumar Basu (supra)]. It has been averred in the petitions that paragraph 1744 of the Indian Railways Commercial Manual, which is an executive instruction issued by the Railway Board, is the root cause for the raising of the punitive demands, which are challenged in this petition. Mr Kaul submitted that if paragraph 1744 had not existed then the demands challenged herein would not have been raised. He submits that paragraph 1744 is violative of