A sole proprietorship is prohibited from holding renewals for multiple catering licenses at a railway station, whereas associative entities like Co-operative Societies, Partnership Firms, and Hindu Undivided Families are exempt from this cap as per judicial clarification.

DEEPAK SIBAL, J. (Oral)

1. Through this petition the petitioner seeks issuance of a direction to the respondent-railway authorities to grant renewal to the licences of four mobile catering units/stalls being run by the petitioner at various platforms of the Amritsar Railway Station.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship concern which, since the year 2009, is running four mobile catering stalls at various platforms of the Amritsar Railway Station.

On 29.01.2016, in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others vs. S. C. R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare and another -(2016) 3 SCC 582, the Supreme Court declared that only those licensees, who are providing catering services at railway stations, shall be eligible for renewal of their licences who can declare on affidavit that they do not possess in their names licences for more than one shop/kiosk. In line with the afore observations of the Supreme Court, a circular dated 15.03.2017 was also issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India.

3. Since the petitioner was running more than one mobile catering stall at the Amritsar Railway Station and had not filed the required affidavit, in November-2023, the respondent-railway authorities invited e-bids for allotment of catering stalls at the Amritsar Railway Station. The four catering stalls being run by the petitioner were also included in the said notice inviting tender. In these circumstances the petitioner, through the instant petition, has knocked the doors of this Court seeking issuance of a direction to the respondent-railway authorities to grant renewal to all the four licences that the petitioner possesses as according to the petitioner its case is being discriminated vis-à-vis one M/s Mehta Bishan Dass & Sons licences of which firm have been granted renewal by the respondent-railway authorities to run nine mobile catering stalls at the Amritsar Railway Station.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a sole proprietorship firm; its sole proprietor belongs to the poor strata of the society; since the year 2009, the petitioner has been running four small mobile catering stalls at the Amritsar Railway Station; the petitioner’s licences for the afore-mentioned four stalls have been renewed by the respondent-railway authorities since the year 2009 but in November-2023, without any prior notice to the petitioner and in an arbitrary manner, the respondent-railway authorities failed to renew the petitioner’s licences; the respondent-railway authorities further chose to invite bids for fresh allotment of the four stalls being run by the petitioner; in the petitioner’s case the respondent-railway authorities wrongly applied the judgment of the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager’s case (supra) but discriminately did not do so in the case of similarly placed firm namely M/s Mehta Bishan Dass & Sons which firm has been permitted by the respondent-railway authorities to run as many as nine catering stalls at the Amritsar Railway Station.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-railway authorities submits that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager’s case (supra), a sole proprietorship firm like the petitioner’s could be allowed to run only one catering stall at a railway platform and that was also subject to such caterer filing of an affidavit that it does not possess licences for more than one shop/kiosk or benami licence; the petitioner did not file any such affidavit and therefore, cannot be allowed to complain; there