* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 11.03.2026 &

13.03.2026 % Judgment Delivered on: 20.03.2026 + LPA 112/2026, CM APPL. 14740/2026 & CM APPL. 14741/2026 VANDANA MISHRA .....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents AND + LPA 116/2026, CM APPL. 14789/2026 & CM APPL. 14790/2026 CHANDRA MAULI MISHRA .....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents AND + LPA 122/2026, CM APPL. 15457/2026 & CM APPL. 15458/2026 BHAVESH JASWANI .....Appellant Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in these cases For the Appellants : Mr. Sanjoy Ghosh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avneesh Singh &

Mr. Ambuj Singh, Advocates.

For the Respondents : Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, Mr.

Shivam Bharadwaj, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Ayush Kasana, Mr. Vivek Sharma, Mr. K. Upadhyay & Mr. Amulya Dev Mishra, Advocates.

Mr. Abhishek Saket & Mr. Vivek Nagar, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. This batch of intra-court Appeals is filed being aggrieved by the common Judgment and Order dated 25.02.2026 (“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 18000/2025, 18035/2025 and 1727/2026 (“Writ Petitions”) seeking extension of the license period to operate the catering license awarded by the Respondents in favour of the Appellants. As all these Appeals are challenging the Impugned Judgment, they are decided by way of the present common Judgment.

2. By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that the respective Contracts entered into between the Appellants and the Respondents were after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, the Appellants are not entitled to rely upon the decision in Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4476. The learned Single Judge has observed that in Ved Prakash Mishra (supra) while dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioners therein were granted 3 months’ time to vacate the catering stalls since catering stalls were operating for a long period considering that the contract was entered into prior to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. It is held in the Impugned Judgement that as in the facts of the present Appeals, the Appellants were allotted the catering stalls by the Respondents after March 2021, who entered into the Contract with full knowledge of the prevailing situation and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the footfalls at the railway stations, no parity can be claimed by the Appellants. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Respondents had already been granted relaxation in the quantum of license fee as well as other benefits taking into account the reduced footfalls at the railway stations on account of COVID-19 pandemic as acknowledged by the Appellants in the Writ Petitions. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge by way of the Impugned Judgment has held that having obtained the benefit of the reduced license fee, the Appellants cannot seek extension of the license period.

3. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned CGSC for the Respondents.

4. The principal ground of challenge in these Appeals is that the learned Single Judge did not adequately consider that, although the respective Contracts were executed after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Respondents had floated the bid for the catering services license prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, the Appellants had no viable alternative but to execute the Contract post-pandemic, as declining to do so would have resulted in a five-year debarment of the Appellants.

5. The learned Counsel for the Appellants submitted that as per the respective Master License Agreements entered into between the Appellants and the Respondents, it is provided in Clause 15.1(a) that if the licensee fails to st