BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.03.2025 CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN W.P.(MD)No.5949 of 2025 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.4350 & 4351 of 2025 Jerrys Anbunayaham ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Railway Board, Rep. by its Director (Tourism & Catering) Ministry of Railway, Government of India, Rail Bhavan, New-Delhi - 11000

2.The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Tiruchirappalli Division, Southern Railways, Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railways, Central Branch, Park Town, Chennai - 600 003.

4.Trichy District Co-operative Milk Producers Union Limited, Pudukottai Road, Kottapatti, Trichy - 628 023. ... Respondents Prayer : This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the impugned order in No.T/C, 79/Milk Stall/(MS end) TPJ on the file of the second respondent dated 26.02.2025 and quash the same and further direct the second respondent to renew the license for running Milk Stall at Chennai end of Platform No.1 of Trichy Railway Junction and permit the petitioner to run Milk Parlor without insisting for condition that the fourth respondent to run the Milk Stalls only through its employees.

For Petitioner : Mr.Adhithya for Mr.G.Prabhu Rajadurai For Respondents : Mr.K.Govindarajan Deputy Solicitor General of India for R1 to R3 Mr.M.Krishnan for Mr.J.Devasenan, Standing Counsel for R4

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the impugned order of the second respondent in his proceedings dated 26.02.2025.

2. The petitioner is a franchise of the fourth respondent. The Southern Railways allotted two spaces in its Railway Station at Tiruchirappalli to the fourth respondent. Both were in Platform No.1, one at southern end and the other at northern end. The fourth respondent, in turn, gave a franchise license to the writ petitioner and one Mohammed Asraf in the year 2007. The license was originally for three years and it was renewed from time to time.

3. In 2022, the Railway Board decided to call for fresh tenders for both Milk Booths. This constrained the writ petitioner herein to file W.P. (MD)No.5581 of 2024. Similarly, he filed another writ petition along with Mohammed Asraf in W.P.(MD)No.15525 of 2022 seeking for renewal of license without insisting on the condition that Aavin should run Milk Parlour by its own and not through franchise. Both the writ petitions were clubbed together and were disposed by a common order dated 04.04.2024.

4. By that order, this Court directed the Railway Board to take into account the representation made by the writ petitioner herein and by Mohammed Asraf and that of Aavin and take a call, whether it wants to renew the license or to continue with the tender process. At the time of disposal of the writ petitions, this Court permitted the tender process to go on, but its confirmation to be based on the decision of the Railway Board.

5. The Railway Board decided that the Agreement, that had been entered into between the Southern Railway and Aavin, was a bipartite one and not a tripartite one as in the case of Mysuru Railway Station. Hence, it decided that modification of the Agreement cannot be considered by permitting a franchise of the licensee to be included in the Agreement and thereby permit renewal. Pursuant to the order passed by the Railway Board, the impugned order was passed on 26.02.2025. On the very same day, the second respondent also confirmed auction in favour of M/s.Nithya Aavin Stall, Vellore and M/s.Ibah Agency, Villuppuram.

6. This writ petition was filed on 03.03.2025. When the writ petition came up for admission, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India made a submission that if the Booths are directly run by the Co- operative Society, the Railway Board has no issue. But, it will not grant a license to run a Milk Parlour through franchise.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the fourth respondent took time to file counter.

8. The fourth respondent fil