Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 360 (PAT)

Poorvanchal Caterers v. Union Of India

2004-03-31

RADHA MOHAN PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the renewal of pantry car contract of 2401 UP/2402 DN Shramjivi Express running in between PNBE-NDLS and back only for a period of one year instead of one full term i.e., five years in accordance with law and within the parameters of the policy decision of the Railway. By filing I.A. No. 4333 of 2002 the petitioner has sought for the relief against the decision of the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. inviting financial bid for pantry car licence of Shramjivi Express vide letter dated 17.9.2002 and directing the Corporation to refrain from interfering with the licence of the petitioner. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 and additional affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been filed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the denial of renewal of the licence to the petitioner for a period of one term i.e. five years pursuant to the New Catering Policy is bad as the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) by the Railways with the IRCTC Limited, pursuant to which the control of settlement of such contract vested in IRCTC Limited, has expired as is evident from Annexure 26. He further contended that in any view of the matter, the power of settlement vests in the Railway Board under section 144 of the Indian Railways Act and such power could not be redelegated to lRCTC Limited. Thus, he contended that as per the original policy, contained in Annexure 1, the renewal is to be granted for full tenure i.e., five years subject, of course, to satisfactory performance of the contract. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that reference of section 144 of the Indian Railways Act is completely misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that reference of section 144 of the Indian Railways Act is completely misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the 1992 Policy, contained in Annexure 19, was substituted by Catering Policy of 2000, which is subject to the Circular dated 22nd October, 2001 of the Railway Board and all these Policies and Circulars came up for consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 65 of 2002 filed by the very petitioner and the learned single Judge after considering all aspects came to the conclusion that the law is well settled that this Court in exer cise of extraordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere with the administrative and commercial decisions of the public bodies and accordingly dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.1.2001, contained in Annexure R/2, against which the petitioner filed appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 178 of 2002, which was also dismissed vide Annexure R/3. The Division Bench held that the petitioner has no indefeasible or absolute right in his favour and the respondents are not obliged or duty bound either to renew the licence or consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of licence. 5. In the present case, it is not disputed that the petitioner completed his term of five years. 6. However, in the second round of litigation, the petitioner filed another writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 1469 of 2001, relating to renewal of catering licence held by the petitioner for the period 1992-97 as pantry car licence of 2401 UP/2402 DN (Shramjivi Express).The Court while quashing the impugned order rejecting the petitioners claim for renewal remitted the matter back to the competent authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law within a period of two months, vide order dated 11.7.2001 (Annexure 12). As such, keeping in view the said order dated 11.7.2001 (Annexure 12), the competent authority granted renewal for one year obviously considering the convenience of the public. Later, the new policy came and the control was vested in the IRCTC Limited and pursuant to that, notice was issued inviting tender and the petitioner was also invited to participate in the competitive bidding process, vide Annexure 18. 7. Later, the new policy came and the control was vested in the IRCTC Limited and pursuant to that, notice was issued inviting tender and the petitioner was also invited to participate in the competitive bidding process, vide Annexure 18. 7. It has rightly been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that reference of section 144 of the Indian Railways Act is completely misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Section 144 is a provision relating to prohibition on hawking etc. and begging in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway except under and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted by the railway administration in this behalf and the punishment for violation of the same. It does not prohibit the railway administration from making provision for grant of licence for the said purpose. Accordingly, the railway administration has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the IRCTC Limited, pursuant to which IRCTC Limited is to look after the matter relating to grant of licence. There is no question of re-delegation of power in the said authority. 8. However, having regard to the decision of this Court in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner (AnnexureR/2), which has been upheld by the Division Bench, vide Annexure R/3, holding that the petitioner has no indefeasible or absolute right in his favour and the respondents are not obliged or duty bound either to renew the licence or consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of the licence, this Court does not find any reason to go into any other question. 9. The writ petition is thus dismissed. The interim order dated 3.10.2002 is thus vacated and the respondents shall be free to proceed in the matter.