HI GH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAI NI TAL Writ Petition Misc. Bench No. 139 of 2025

23 April, 2025 M/s Vrindawan Enterprises …Petitioner Versus Union of India & Others …Respondents --------------------------------------------------------------

Presence:-

Mr. Maneesh Bisht, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Lalit Sharma, Central Govt. Standing Counsel, for the respondents.

--------------------------------------------------------------

J U D G M E N T Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J.

( Per: Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has sought the following reliefs:

“i) To, issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of certiorari calling for the records and quash the impugned orders dated 06.06.2024, passed by respondent no. 5 i.e. Manager/CS, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC), order dated 26.11.2024, passed by the Chief Regional Manager, IRCTC/RO-LKO, and the order dated 27.03.2025, passed by the Dy. General Manager/CS, IRCTC/RO-LKO. (Annexure No. 14, 17 & 19 to the writ petition)

ii) To, issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent authorities to permit the petitioner franchise to run the Food Plaza at Kathgodam Railway Station, Nainital, by extending their time period for next 3 years in light of Clause 3.1 of Tender document in addition to Clause 16.1.4 of the Catering Policy, 2010.”

2. Petitioner, after successful bidding, was granted franchise by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC) to run a food plaza at Kathgodam Railway Station in the year 2012. The said franchise was given for a term of 9 years from the date of commissioning of food plaza, which was extendable for another 3 years. After expiry of the term of franchise, IRCTC invited fresh bids for franchise to run a food plaza at Kathgodam Railway Station. Thus feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

3. Petitioner is challenging the orders passed by the Manager/CS, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (respondent no. 5) on 6.6.2024, 26.11.2024 and 27.3.2025. By the first order dated 6.6.2024, petitioner was informed that term of franchise given to him will come to an end on 9.6.2024 and he was asked to ensure peaceful handover of food plaza at Kathgodam Railway Station to IRCTC on 9.6.2024. By the second order dated 26.11.2024, petitioner’s request for extension of franchise for further 3 years was turned down. By the third order dated 27.3.2025, petitioner was informed that the competent authority in IRCTC has directed to close the operation and also to peacefully vacate the premises of food plaza in presence of IRCTC official on

27.3.2025.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon Clause 16.1.4 of the Catering Policy, 2010, which reads as under:

“16.1.4 Tenure of Food Plaza will be for 9 years with an extension of 3 years on satisfactory performance and payment and payment of all dues and arrears and withdrawal of court cases, if any.”

5. Based on the aforesaid clause of the catering policy, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was no complaint of unsatisfactory performance against the petitioner during the entire term of the franchise given to him, therefore, he has a right of extension, in view of the aforesaid clause.

6. Learned Counsel for the respondents, however, relied upon Clause 3.1 of the tender document, pursuant to which franchise was granted to the petitioner. Clause 3.1 of the tender document reads as under:

“3.1 Term of Franchise for Food Plaza will be (9) Nine years. The Franchise may be renewed for another (3) three years at the discretion of IRCTC and the decision of IRCTC in this regard shall be final. Total tenure of the Franchise shall not exceed 12 years in any case. IRCTC will not be obliged to assign any reason whatsoever for not renewing the Franchise.”

7. It is thus contended by learned Counsel for the respondents that extensio