Kaushalya Meena v. Union of India & Ors.

8. The aforesaid batch of petitions was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30th May, 2024.

9. The Coordinate Bench held that the licenses of the petitioners were subject to terms and conditions outlined in the Catering Policy 2017 and hence were non-renewable. The relevant observations made in the said judgment are given below:

10. In light of the aforesaid findings, the writ petitions were dismissed. However, the Court gave three (3) months’ period to the petitioners therein to vacate the catering units in question, subject to payment of the license fee. The findings given in paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment are set out below:

11. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the petitioners therein before the Division Bench. However, the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 9th August, 2024, are set out below:

12. The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioners therein by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27th August, 2024. However, while dismissing the SLPs, the Supreme Court extended the time granted by the Single Judge by a further period of four (4) months.

13. The petitioner herein, filed a fresh writ before this Court being WP(C) 6379/2025, seeking grant of extension of seven months in terms with the judgment of this Court dated 30th May, 2024 as modified by the Supreme Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions: W.P.(C) 19100/2025 and connected matters “14.Accordingly, it is directed that, subject to payment of license fees, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the Special Minor Unit (SMU) (Women)/Catering Stall No. 24 at Platform No. 6 of Vadodara Railway Station for a period of 7 months from 16th October, 2025, at stipulated license fees.

15. The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking, on an affidavit, before this Court, within a period of four weeks from today, that the petitioner shall vacate the stall in question, on expiry of the extended period of 7 months, failing which, the respondents will be at liberty to remove the goods of the petitioner, from the stall in question.”

14. The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners premised on a new document which came to the knowledge of the petitioners i.e. ‘Indian Railway Code for Traffic (Commercial) Department, Revised Edition,1993’ (‘Indian Railway Code for Traffic’). The petitioners have placed reliance on para 712 of the said document to claim that the licenses granted in their favour can be further extended, subject to the performance of the licensee being satisfactory. The relevant para 712 relied by the petitioner is set out below: “Renewal

712. After expiry of 5 years, the licence can be further extended subject to the performance of the licencee being satisfactory during the previous agreemental period. The decision regarding renewal shall be taken based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee and shall consist of 3 SAG Officers, in case of large/important units and at least senior scale level for other units.”

15. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of renewal of license in terms of the aforesaid para 712. This para was amended by the respondents during the pendency of the present writ petitions on 14th January, 2026 in the following terms:

16. It is contended that the aforesaid amendment to para 714 is prospective and hence would not be applicable to the petitioners who are prior allotees.

17. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid policy document is not applicable to the petitioners. It is stated that para 703 of the said policy document clearly provides that this policy is not applicable where the licenses have been given on the basis of a tender. This policy would apply only where licenses have been given by calling for applications. Para 703 on which reliance is placed by the respondents is set out below: “Applications

703. Catering/vending licences should be awarded by calling applications. Tender system for selection of licencees shall not be followed. Applications should be invited only from professional and reputed caterers through press advertisement.”

18. This Court finds merit in the submission of the respondents that the aforesaid policy document is not applicable in the case of the petitioners who have all been granted licenses pursuant to a tender document.

19. The petitioners entered into a Master License Agreement with the respondents wherein the terms and conditions of license were stipulated. The Master License Agreement states that the license has been granted in terms of the 2017 Catering Policy. The Master License Agreement also clearly stipulates that there cannot be any renewal of the license. The relevant clauses of the Master License Agreement are set out below: “WHERE AS:

ARTICLE 3: TENURE OF THE AGREEMENT 3.[1] The Tenure of the Agreement will commence on the Commencement Date, as provided in Article 1.1, as Five (5) years only and subject to the provisions of Article 9 and Article 17 herein below, if not terminated. The contract period is from 17th October, 2020 (Saturday). 19.[1] There will be no extension/renewal.” [emphasis supplied]

20. Therefore, in my considered view, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the aforesaid Indian Railway Code for Traffic is completely misplaced. Consequently, the amendment to para 712 of the said Catering Policy of 2017 would be of no consequence. The issue regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to seek a renewal of their license has been decided by this Court in the judgment of 30th May, 2024, which has been upheld till the Supreme Court. The present petitions are nothing but an attempt to reopen the issue which has already been settled.

21. It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to the earlier round of litigations, all the petitioners have filed undertakings before this Court W.P.(C) 19100/2025 and connected matters stating that they will vacate the premises after the seven (7) months’ period extension granted to them.

22. By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking to resile from the said undertaking which cannot be permitted.

23. Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11962/2025 has placed reliance on a communication dated 12th November, 2024 issued by the Jabalpur Branch of the Railways wherein an extension has been granted to one of the caterers running a food stall at Jabalpur Railway Station. Hence, it is contended that the respondents are acting in a discriminatory manner.

24. The respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid petition have duly explained that there is no parity between the case of the petitioner and the case of the contractor in Jabalpur to whom extension has been granted.

25. It has been explained that the license of old catering units which were originally awarded prior to the Catering Policy of 2010, was renewed in that case. Therefore, no case of parity is made out by the petitioner.

26. The petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5981/2025 wherein a direction has been issued to the respondents to constitute a Screening Committee as per para 712 of the guidelines to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license.

27. The said order passed by the Rajasthan High Court does not contain any reasons and therefore does not hold any precedential value. Nor does it appear that the judgment passed by this Court on 30th May, 2024 was W.P.(C) 19100/2025 and connected matters brought to the attention of the Rajasthan High Court in the said case.

28. In light of the facts which have been brought forth before this Court by the respondents, including the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30th May, 2024, I am not inclined to follow the approach adopted by the Rajasthan High Court.

29. In view of the discussions above, this Court does not find merit in the aforesaid batch of petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions along with all pending applications are dismissed.

30. A direction is issued to the petitioners to forthwith handover possession of the premises where the seven (7) months’ period extension granted by the orders passed by the Court have already expired.

31. In matters where the aforesaid seven (7) months’ period has not expired, the petitioners shall handover possession to the respondents after the said seven (7) months’ period expires. AMIT BANSAL, J. FEBRUARY 2, 2026