ORDER

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 02-1-2024 issued by the 3rd respondent by which the lease with the 4th respondent – Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation (‘Federation’ for short) stands terminated.

2. Heard Sri.Nishan G.K., learned counsel appearing for petitioner, Sri.K.Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 to 3.

3. A notice inviting tender is issued by the 3rd respondent/Railways to allot milk stalls at Bangarpet Railway Station. The subject of the present petition is platform Nos.3 and 4 of the said Railway Station. The 4th respondent participates and emerges successful in the tender. The letter of award is also issued in favour of the 4th respondent allotting two milk stalls in platform Nos.3 and 4 at the said Railway station. The contract is signed with the 4th respondent. The contract permitted sub-licensing of the milk stalls allotted to the licensee. In terms of the said clause in the contract, on 10.04.2017, the petitioner, 4th respondent and the 3rd respondent - Railways enter into a tripartite agreement. The lease / license was initially for a period of three years which would expire in the year 2020. This was subsequently extended upto 07.01.2024, by entering into a separate agreement at a later point in time.

4. In terms of the agreement entered into in the month of September’2023 i.e., on 19-09-2023, which was to come into effect from the date of expiry of the first tenure in the year 2020, the lease with the Federation/licencee has expired and the termination of contract has happened qua the 4th respondent who had the lease with the 3rd respondent, Railways. The petitioner is a sub-licencee from the hands of the Federation/licencee. The petitioner has knocked at the doors of this Court that the lease with the Federation/licencee is terminated and the effect of which will be that the petitioner will be evicted from the vending business on the stall.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner would make a herculean effort to contend that his right to vend is taken away in the stalls of the railway platform Nos.3 and 4 of Bangarpet Railway Station, on the ground that the Federation/licencee has entered into a separate agreement with the Raiwlays, pursuant to which the lease has come to an end on 07-01-2024. The petitioner was not made aware of any of the transactions between the Federation/licencee and the Railways. He was caught unawares when he receives a notice of eviction is his submission.

6. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India representing the Railways would take this Court through the documents appended to the petition, seeking to demonstrate that even in the tripartite agreement, it is clearly indicated that the Railways would not have any correspondence with the petitioner, but all the correspondence will be with the Federation/licencee and the term of the licencee in terms of the agreement comes to an end on 07-01-2024. Therefore, if the Federation/licencee itself does not have any right to continue its lease, the petitioner being a sub-licencee cannot be seen to have a superior right, is the submission of the learned Additional Solicitor General.

6.1. The learned Additional Solicitor General would further take this Court through the objections so filed to contend that there were serious irregularities on the part of the petitioner in running the stall, it was tendered for the purpose of running a milk parlour, but several other items which were not permitted were being sold in the premises. He would submit that these communications were not made to the petitioner, but to the Federation/licencee, it is in turn the licencee has communicated to the Railways that the petitioner/sub-licencee is not serious about the advice given by licencee to adhere to the terms of the contract and therefore, had to pay the penalty that was imposed upon it by the Railways. With all these factors the learned Additional Solicitor Gene