Judgment 1. Heard the parties. 2. By the present writ application the petitioner has basically challenged the right of respondent nos. 1 and 2 to advertise and settle the package of on board service, with a single person ignoring the right of the petitioner who has existing contract for cleaning and washing of linen for a period in some cases upto January, 2008. The contention is that when Railways had decided to out source services provided in running train like catering, bedrolls, vending, toilet cleaning, they decided in policy that it should be clubbed as one. Same was named as on board service as a package. This right to make settlement was then delegated to respondent nos. 1 and 2. It would thus be seen that respondent nos. 1 and 2 are nothing but delegatee/licencee of Railways in this matter. Before this delegation Railways had made certain settlements with the petitioner for washing and cleaning of linen. IRCTC decided to settle these on board service, dispute arose which lead to the Railway Minister making a statement in the Parliament that existing services contract not to be effected. This was followed by a circular issued by the Railways clearly stipulating that existing contractee would not be disturbed for the period of their contract. When first this was sought to be under IRCTC this was challenged by way of C.W.J.C. No. 8002/06. During the pendency of the writ application respondent no.1 decided to withdraw the said tender in respect of existing contractee and as such the said writ application was permitted to be withdrawn by order dated 9.8.2006. Unfortunately once again respondent nos. 1 and 2 have resorted to the same in bringing the petitioner once again to this court for the same relief and now the Railways have appeared and filed a counter affidavit virtually accepting that the position taken by respondent nos. 1 and 2 is not correct and they have intervened to tell respondents not to proceed with the settlement for the whole on board services. In other words, the interest of the petitioner would continue to be safeguarded. 3. On behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 this position is not now contested. Therefore, again the position is that the petitioners interest is not being jeopardised in any manner. The on board service, the settlement of which respondent nos. In other words, the interest of the petitioner would continue to be safeguarded. 3. On behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 this position is not now contested. Therefore, again the position is that the petitioners interest is not being jeopardised in any manner. The on board service, the settlement of which respondent nos. 1 and 2 will be making as a licencees from the Railways would thus be subject to the rights of existing contractees for the period of their contracts. 4. As the petitioners right remain protected, no grievance/remains to be decided and none has been urged. This writ application is accordingly disposed of.