A licensee whose license has expired has no right to seek renewal, especially when the governing policy explicitly prohibits it.

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)

This appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act , 1961 is directed against the order dated 06.12.2022 in W.P.No.102294/2022 whereby appellant’s challenge to the bid notification dated 07.06.2022 inviting tenders and prayer to quash Commercial Circular No.22/2017 dated 15.03.2017 and also for a direction to renew the catering license of the petitioner is rejected.

2. Parties to the present appeal would be referred to as they stood before the learned Single Judge. The appellant was petitioner and respondents were respondents before the learned Single Judge.

3. Brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner was granted license to set up and run a major stall i.e., (fast food unit) in Gadag railway station by letter of indent dated 11.07.2009. On 21.07.2010, the respondent- Railways brought into effect the catering policy of 2010. In pursuance to the letter of allotment to run major food stall, agreement was entered into between the petitioner and respondents on 07.12.2011. In terms of the agreement, the tenure of major units was for a period of five years, making it clear that there will be no renewal for major units. The period of license of the petitioner expired in the year 2016. The respondent-railways issued tender notification dated 07.06.2022 inviting sealed e-tender for setting up of operation and management of fast food units at railway stations including Gadag railway station. Questioning the said tender notification with a prayer to quash the new policy published under the Circular No.22/2017 dated 15.03.2017 and also praying to renew the catering license, the petitioner was before the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.102294/2022. Learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties, under impugned order rejected the petitioner’s writ petition. Questioning the said rejection, the present appeal is filed.

4. Heard learned counsel Sri.Veeresh Budihal for petitioner/appellant, learned counsel Sri.M.C.Hukkeri for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 8, learned counsel Sri.Sadiq Goodwala for respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 and learned counsel Sri.M.B.Kanavi for respondent No.6. Perused the entire writ appeal papers.

5. Learned counsel Sri.Veeresh Budihal for petitioner contends that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH CENTRAL RAILWAYS AND OTHERS VS. S.C.R. CATERERS, DRY FRUITS, FRUIT JUICE, STALLS WELFARE ASSOCIATION AND ANOTHER, [(2016) 3 SCC 582] . He submits that in the said decision the association of caterers had approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh questioning non-renewal of their license and inviting sealed bids for allotment of food stalls. In the above case, learned Single Judge held that the licensees were entitled for renewal of their license for a period of three years, subject to they satisfying certain conditions, which was confirmed by the Division Bench in the writ appeals. The said order and judgment were the subject matter before the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court dismissed the SLP filed by the Railways, placing reliance on the said decision. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner would also be entitled for renewal of license in terms of the above. Learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant has not canvassed any other contention.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Railways would submit that the petitioner has no right to continue once the license is expired. Further, it is submitted that the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra would have no application to the facts of the present case since the said decision related to the general minor units and special minor units and it would have no application to general major units. It is submitted that the petitioner was allotted general major unit to run fast food unit in Gadag railway station. Further, it is also submitted that the decision relied by the l