Rajesh Mehta v. Union of India & Ors.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with respect to the catering stall, i.e., General Minor Unit (“GMU”)/Fruit Juice Stall No. FJS - 3 at Platform No. 4/5 of Bhopal Railway Station.

2. It is submitted that the Letter of Award dated 13th August, 2019 was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, Commercial Branch, Bhopal, by way of which, the said catering stall was allotted in favour of the petitioner for five years, commencing from 12th April, 2020. Additionally, the said catering stall was extended vide letter dated 05th July, 2021, from 11th April, 2025 to 20th June, 2025.

3. Further, by way of the letter dated 20th June, 2025, issued by the Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, Commercial Branch, Bhopal, the contract of petitioner was extended from 20th June, 2025 to 22nd October,

2025.

4. It is submitted that this Court, on previous occasions, has granted relief in similar matters, wherein, extension has been granted beyond the “dies non” period. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 07th March, 2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2953/2025, titled as “Sadeek Ali Versus Union of India and Ors.”, wherein, further extension of 7 months has been granted to the petitioner therein. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to other similar orders passed in other petitions.

5. Thus, it is submitted that the license period of the petitioner in the present case also, ought to be extended for another period of 7 months and that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking on affidavit before this Court, that the petitioner will vacate the stall in question, on expiry of the extended period of 7 months.

6. Issue notice. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents raises objection with regard to jurisdiction of the Court with respect to the present case.

8. He further submits that the petitioner has already been granted the benefit of dies-non period.

9. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that vide judgment dated 30th May, 2024, in the case of W.P.(C) 6771/2024, titled as Ved Prakash Mishra Versus Union of India and Ors. and other connected matters, this Court with respect to the issue of jurisdiction, has held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx

9. In Jayaswals Neco (supra), the petitioner therein impugned letter of demands raised by South East Central Railway, Chhattisgarh; they also impugned para 1744 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual, framed by the Railway Board in Delhi. This Court held that even though no part of cause of action has arisen in Delhi since a writ striking down para 1744 of the Indian Railway Commercial Manual would have to be issued to the Railway Board which is in New Delhi, from the standpoint of Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, this Court would have jurisdiction inasmuch as the authority to whom the writ is to be issued is located within the normal territorial limits of this Court. Relevant extract from the said judgment is as under:

12. In the present case, it cannot be said that this Court is devoid of the jurisdiction to entertain the present writ petitions challenging Clause 11 of the Catering Policy 2017. Considering that in some of these petitions the concerned zonal railways is Northern Railway, headquartered in Delhi and also considering that common issues arise for consideration in this batch of matters, this Court deems it apposite to entertain the present petitions and adjudicate the same on merits. xxx xxx xxx” (Emphasis Supplied)

10. Considering the aforesaid, it is to be noted that the issue, as regards the jurisdiction of this Court, already stands settled. Further, this Court notes that, as far as the catering policy of the Indian Railways is concerned, the same is uniform throughout the country. Therefore, since in similar matters, the Division Bench of this Court, as well as the Supreme Court, has already granted relief, considering the uniformity of the policy of the Indian Railways, this Court proceeds to adjudicate the present matter.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this stage, states that the petitioner is only pressing for the grant of extension of the license period for the period of 7 months, in terms of the orders passed previously, and gives up other challenges with regard to the policy of the Indian Railways.