Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 18th May, 2026
11738/2021, CM APPL. 7446/2026 SUNSHINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. S. Sisodia and Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Sidhant Singh, Advocates
(through VC).
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiram Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Mr. Tushar Nair, Advocates for IRCTC.
16.
11737/2021, CM APPL. 7444/2026 SUNSHINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. S. Sisodia and Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Sidhant Singh, Advocates
(through VC).
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiram Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Mr. Tushar Nair, Advocates for IRCTC.
17.
11736/2021, CM APPL. 7443/2026 SUNSHINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. S. Sisodia and Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Sidhant Singh, Advocates
(through VC).
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiram Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Mr. Tushar Nair, Advocates for IRCTC.
19.
11915/2021, CM APPL. 7445/2026 SUNSHINE CATERERS PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. S. S. Sisodia and Mr. Abhishek and Mr. Sidhant Singh, Advocates
(through VC).
Through: Mr. Saurav Agrawal, Ms. Kiram Devrani, Mr. Anshuman Chowdhury, Ms. Samayra Adlakha, Mr. Parmeet Singh and Mr. Tushar Nair, Advocates for IRCTC.
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petitions were filed in December, 2019 seeking setting aside of the non-renewal letters (‘impugned letters’) issued by the respondent-IRCTC to the petitioner.
2. Since all the writ petitions have been filed by the same petitioners against the same respondents and involve common issues, they are being disposed of by a common judgement. However for the sake of convenience, the facts of W.P.(C) 13921/ 2019 are being noted.
3. Briefly stated, the facts in the present writ petitions are as follows: i. The petitioners were awarded contracts for providing catering services in four trains (‘subject trains’) for a period of 5 years on payment of license fee. In this regard, License Agreements were entered into between the petitioners and the respondent-Railways for a period of 5 years. The License Agreements (‘subject contracts’) had a renewal clause subject to the satisfactory performance of the contract. ii. On 20th June, 2019, the original contracts for a period of 5 years expired and the Railways issued the impugned letters on 20th December, 2019 stating that the Railways have decided not to renew the subject contracts on account of petitioners not attaining the minimum guaranteed performance, making the petitioners ineligible for consideration for the said renewal.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petitions were filed before this Court.
5. On 24th December, 2019, interim orders were passed in favour of the petitioners to the effect that the petitioners shall continue to perform/ provide catering services in the subject trains in terms of the contract W.P.(C) 13919/2019 and connected matters between the parties. The interim orders have continued to operate since then.
6. On 13th June, 2024, IRCTC issued a show-cause notice to the petitioners for non-payment of license fee for the subject trains, demanding the outstanding dues.
7. On 13th December, 2024, an affidavit was filed on behalf of IRCTC stating as to the date on which the contracts, if renewed, would have expired.
8. In the order passed by this Court on 9th July, 2025, submission of counsel for IRCTC was recorded to the effect that approximately a cumulative sum of Rs.5,30,00,000/- was due against the petitioners.
9. On 2nd February, 2026, applications were filed on behalf of IRCTC seeking vacation of the interim orders passed by this Court on 24th December, 2019.
10. On 3rd February, 2026, Counsel for the respondent-IRCTC handed over a chart in Court, in terms of which, the renewed period of the contract of the petitioners in the subject trains was expiring on different dates w.e.f. 3rd February, 2026 till 5th April, 2026. The said chart is set out below: W.P.(C) 13919/2019 and connected matters
11. On 3rd February, 2026, this Court passed a direction that the interim orders shall cease to apply in respect of the trains where the renewed period is also over.
12. Further, IRCTC was directed to issue a communication to the petitioners detailing the amounts due on the assumption that there has been a renewal in terms of the contract. Pursuant to the said directions, letters dated 13th February and 14th February were issued by IRCTC to the petitioners detailing the amounts due.
13. In the order passed by this Court on 25th February, 2026, it was brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioners have approached the City Civil Court, Calcutta seeking an extension of the license in respect of the subject contracts and the counsel for the petitioners sought time to take instructions in the said regard.
14. On the next date of hearing on 13th March, 2026, counsel for the petitioners on instructions from the petitioner who was present in Court, took note of the apology on behalf of the petitioner that the aforesaid petitions have been filed under wrong legal advice and the same shall be withdrawn forthwith.
15. Counsel appearing for IRCTC submits that as per the website, the said petitions are still stated to be pending. Counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not instructed by his client whether the aforesaid petitions have been withdrawn.
16. At the hearing on 13th March, 2026, it was also submitted by the petitioners that the petitioners have withdrawn from the operation, management and supply of catering services in respect of three of the trains W.P.(C) 13919/2019 and connected matters and in respect of the fourth train, the petitioner shall withdraw on 23rd March, 2026, which was the date of expiry of the renewed period. The contention of IRCTC was also noted in the said order that the contracts for the four subject trains have been awarded to other third parties.
17. In light of the aforesaid developments, the only surviving issue in the present petitions is with regard to recovery of the license fee due and payable to the respondent-IRCTC for the period during which the petitioners continue to operate the contracts on account of the interim orders dated 24th December, 2019 passed by this Court in the present writ petitions.
18. The interim orders passed by this Court mandated that the petitioners would continue to perform catering services in terms of the subject contracts between the parties. Plainly, this would imply that the petitioners would continue to make payments in terms of the subject contracts. The petitioners cannot be heard to say that they will continue to operate catering services under interim orders passed by this Court without paying due amounts to the respondent-IRCTC. It is not even the case of the petitioners that they are not liable to pay contractual dues for the aforesaid period. The contention of the petitioners is that amounts have been paid to the IRCTC.
19. In view of the aforesaid, the present writ petitions are disposed of while holding that the respondents would be entitled to recovery of outstanding dues from the petitioners as per the terms of the contracts for the period petitioners continued to operate in terms of interim orders dated 24th December, 2019 passed by this Court,
20.
IRCTC would be at liberty to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the aforesaid amounts. W.P.(C) 13919/2019 and connected matters
21. All pending applications stand disposed of. AMIT BANSAL, J MAY 18, 2026