SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Telangana) 179

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J. 
Shaik Khadar Basha – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India,  Rep. BY THE Chief Executive Officer-Cum-Chairman & Others – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 35836 Of 2025
Decided On : 08-01-2026

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : K R K V PRASAD
For the Respondent: N BHUJANGA RAO Deputy Solicitor General of India

Licenses under Catering Policy are subject to renewal only upon satisfactory performance; violations of service standards invalidate renewal expectations.

Headnote:(A) Catering Policy, 2010 - Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 - License renewal - Petitioner operated a Tea Stall under a minor unit license, allegedly terminated due to unsatisfactory performance and violations of service standards - The Court upheld the Ministry's decision, stating renewal is subject to satisfactory performance criteria as per the policy and agreements. (Paras 1.3, 3.4, 4, 7)

(B) Right to Livelihood - The court noted that while the principle of right to livelihood is significant, it cannot excuse practices like overcharging that negatively affect public welfare. (Paras 7, 8)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the termination of his Tea Stall license at Kacheguda Railway Station, which he claimed was unlawful given that he had complied with renewal policies and depended on the stall for his livelihood. He received a Show Cause Notice based on penalties related to service violations. (Paras 1.1, 1.6)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination was justified due to the licensee's repeated violations and failure to meet performance standards mandated under the Catering Policy and Master License Agreement. (Paras 4, 8)

Issues: The primary issues were whether the termination was arbitrary and if the petitioner’s expectation of renewal was legitimate considering the policy conditions. (Paras 6, 7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that renewal is not an absolute right and must comply with policy conditions; mere continuation of operations does not establish a legal entitlement to a renewal, especially amidst documented breaches. (Paras 4, 8)

Result: The Writ Petition is accordingly, dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of petitioner’s licensing history. (Para 1)
2. arguments presented by the respondent. (Para 3)
3. court's reasoning on renewal rights. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
4. final decision on the writ petition. (Para 8 , 9 , 10)

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

1. Petitioner states that he has been earning his livelihood solely through railway catering licences. He previously held platform stalls at various railway stations and was awarded a Special Minor Unit Tea Stall No. SMU/018 on Platforms 4 and 5 at Kacheguda Railway Station with effect from 10.09.2016. He was also awarded a General Minor Unit licence at Guntakal Railway Station with effect from 19.07.2018. It is stated, notifications issued under Catering Policy, 2010 were challenged by the SCR Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and others in Writ Petition Nos. 14577, 14888 and 15072 of 2013. By order dated 16.08.2013, this Court held that existing licensees were entitled to consideration for renewal subject to policy conditions, which order was confirmed by the Division Bench on 12.09.2013 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573, 1574 and 1575 of 2013.

1.1. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 618–620 of 2016 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9921–9923 of 2014, by judgment dated 29.01.2016, held that denial of renewal was arbitrary and it affected the right to livelihood of licensees solely dependent on such units. The Court clarified that renewal would be available only to those holding a single unit and declaring the same on affidavit. It is stated further, subsequently, the Ministry of Railways issued Catering Policy, 2017 vide Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2017 dated 27.02.2017, revising the tenure of units to five years without renewal. In compliance with the Supreme Court judgment, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 was issued, permitting renewal of a single retained minor unit after surrender of other units, subject to conditions specified therein.

1.2. At the time of issuance of Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, petitioner held the Tea Stall licence at Kacheguda Railway Station and a GMU licence at Guntakal Railway Station. The Tea Stall licence was awarded vide Letter of Award dated 28.07.2016 under Special Minor Units – Minorities quota, commenced on 10.09.2016 and was initially valid till 09.09.2021. Due to Covid-19, a dies-non period of 323 days was granted and the licence was extended up to 29.07.2022. To comply with Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, petitioner surrendered the GMU licence at Guntakal Railway Station, which was valid from 19.10.2018 to 18.10.2023 and the said surrender was accepted by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Guntakal Division, and the GMU licence was surrendered with effect from 18.02.2022. After submission of required documents pursuant to letter dated 10.03.2022, the Tea Stall licence at Kacheguda was renewed for three years from 30.07.2022 to 29.07.2025, and an agreement dated 18.11.2022 was executed specifically referring to Railway Board letter dated 15.03.2017, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017.

1.3. Before expiry of the renewed period, petitioner applied for further renewal for three years vide letter dated 13.12.2024 and again on 08.05.2025 due to no response. He was permitted to continue operating the Tea Stall beyond 29.07.2025, creating a legitimate expectation of renewal in terms of policy. However, it is stated, he received a Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025, served on 03.10.2025, invoking Para 17 of Catering Policy, 2010, alleging unsatisfactory performance due to penalties imposed on more than five occasions. Petitioner replied on 09.10.2025 stating that he retained only one stall under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, depended solely on it for livelihood; complaints regarding overcharging of packaged drinking water were vague and did not identify vendors, and that penalties were paid to avoid disputes.

1.4. By letter dated 21.11.2025, the 3rd respondent rejected th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top