Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 11th September, 2025
57496/2025 KRISHNA CATERS .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Akshat Bajpai, Mr. Shobhit Trehan, Ms. Vedika Dalmia, Mr. Renuka Parmanand and Ms. Jayashree Mishra, Advs. (Through
VC)
Through: Mr. Nune Balraj, SPC for UOI
Mob: 9866160363 Email: balrajnune@gmail.com
JUDGMENT
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking extension of license with respect for the Catering General Minor Unit at PF-02/03 of Prayagraj Chheoki Railway Station.
2. It is submitted that the Letter dated 12th August, 2020, was issued by the Divisional Railway Manager’s Office, North Central Railway, Prayagraj, by way of which, the said catering stalls were allotted in favour of the petitioner, which was subsequently extended till 14th September, 2025, vide letter dated 21st May, 2020, for the period during which the catering stalls remained closed due to Covid-19, which has been considered as “dies non” period.
3. 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.
4. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to other similar orders passed in other petitions, wherein extensions have been granted to the petitioners therein.
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 3 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 3 months.
6. Issue notice.
7. Notice is accepted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) 2922/2025, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 07th March, 2025.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that despite withdrawal of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner has approached the department belatedly.
10. He further submits that in the present case, the operation of the stall was only from 15th September, 2020, whereas the dies-non period commenced from June, 2020. Thus, he submits that the petitioner started his operations only after the dies-non period.
11. He further submits that the petitioner ought to approach the Allahabad High Court and not this Court, as the stalls in question is at the Prayagraj, Chheoki Railway Station.
12. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the order dated 06th February, 2025, passed in W.P.(C) 1460/2025, titled as “M/s B.H. Catering Versus Union of India & Ors.” and other connected matter, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court, to submit that even in a case, where agreements were executed in the year 2021, the Court has granted the liberty to vacate the stalls by granting limited extension of seven months, for the purposes of vacating the stalls.
13. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, this Court notes that vide judgment dated 30th May, 2024, in the case of Ved Prakash Mishra Versus Union of India and Ors., W.P.(C) 6771/2024 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)
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. It is to be noted that, vide order dated 20th March, 2025, in W.P.(C) 3474/2025, titled as Shri Kishori Lal Versus Union of India & Ors., this Court has, in similar circumstances, granted extension in favour of the petitioner therein.
17. Thus, considering the fact that similar orders have been passed on previous occasions also by this Court, thereby, granting an extension of time for running the stall, this Court is of the view that in parity with the orders passed earlier by this Court, a similar order ought to be passed in the present case also. This Court sees no reason to take a different view from the orders passed earlier.
18. Accordingly, it is directed that, subject to payment of the license fees, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the Catering General Minor Unit at PF-02/03 of Prayagraj Chheoki Railway Station, for a period of 7 months from 17th September, 2025, at stipulated license fees.
19. 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 stalls 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 stalls in question.
20. It is further made clear that extension of the license fees of the petitioner will not preclude the Railways from inviting fresh tenders, for awarding of the license, on expiry of the extended period of license of the petitioner.
21. Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of. MINI PUSHKARNA, J SEPTEMBER 11, 2025