THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. SWR-ZHQOVIG(TNS)/74/2026-0/0 DY.CVO(TRAFFIC)/462 DATED 20-05-2026 (ANNEXURE-L) ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

1.1. QUASH Order bearing no. SWR ZHQOVIG(TnS)/74/2026-O/o Dy.CVO(traffic)/462 dated 20-05-2026 (ANNEXURE-L) issued by the 5th respondent, by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari.

1.2. QUASH Order bearing no. Si.C.79/Catg./Static Units dated 21-05-2026 (ANNEXURE-M) issued by the 4th respondent, by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari.

1.3. DIRECT the respondents to reinstate give effect and renew licenses as in terms of order bearing no.C.C.79/Catg/Static Units 'J' dated 19-09-2025 (Annexure-J) by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus.

1.4. ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.

2. The Petitioner claims to be a catering stall licensee and running/operating an Amul Milk Catering Stall on 2/3 platforms at KR Puram railway station in Bengaluru.

3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present matter is that the catering policy issued vide Commercial Circular No.35/2010 dated 21.07.2010 had been clarified by the Principal Chief Commercial Manager (‘PCCM’), South Western Railway by issuing a Standard Operating Procedure dated 19.09.2025 at Annexure-J and in pursuance thereof, that the licence of the Petitioner has been renewed.

4. Now by way of a communication dated 20.05.2026 at Annexure-L the Vigilance Branch of the South Western Railway has indicated that the PCCM did not have the power to issue such clarification and the matter has been taken up by the Railway Board, it is required to be withdrawn. Pursuant thereto, on 21.05.2026 the PCCM, South Western Railway withdrew the clarification dated 19.09.2025.

5. The submission of Shri Vikram Huilgol learned senior counsel for the Petitioner is that the clarification issued on 19.09.2025 clarifies the mode and methodology of issuing of notices, consideration of penalty and for cancellation of licences as also for renewal of the licence. Therefore, he submits that the withdrawal of the policy would have adverse effect on all stall owners. On that ground, he submits that the relief sought for are to be granted.

6. Sri Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, would submit as under:

6.1. At the outset, he contends that the Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition. According to him, the licence agreement in question has been executed by the Railways, acting through the President of India, with the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd.

6.2. The Petitioner, at best, claims to be a franchisee under the said Federation and is not a party to the licence agreement. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot assert any independent legal right to challenge the impugned communications issued by the Railways.

6.3. He further submits that it was subsequently discovered that the so-called clarification dated 19.09.2025 had been issued by the Principal Chief Commercial Manager (PCCM), which is without any authority of law. Upon complaints received from the vigilance authorities, the Railway Board examined the matter and took a policy decision to withdraw the said communication. In pursuance thereof, the clarification came to be withdrawn by way of Annexure-M.

6.4. Learned ASGI submits that the decision to withdraw the clarification is a policy decision taken in the larger interest of the Railways and with a view to preventing and curbing corrupt practices on the part