JUDGEMENT 1. Both the writ applications are taken up together as the issues involved are common to both. 2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to provide stalls to the petitioners in the light of Clause 3.2 under heading Infrastructure of the Railway Boards Revised Catering Policy 2005 No. 2005/TG/ III/600/5 dated 21.12.2005. The petitioners have also prayed for quashing the tender issued by Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter to be referred to as IRCTC) dated 6.7.2009 contained in Annexure-4. 3. The first case, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 9404 of 2009 is taken as the lead case. The decision of this case will equally apply to the other case. The petitioners of 2nd case use their trolleys at Naugachia, Khagaria and Begusarai Railway Stations. 4. The petitioner of 1st case runs 12 trolleys on platforms of Muzaffapur Railway Station since July, 1996, under valid licences. Their licences have been renewed time to time up to 2003. The petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 10504 of 2009 also run trolley stalls at different railway stations. 5. The petitioner states that he applied for renewal of licence for his trolleys but instead of renewing the same, the trolley vending has been allowed to continue on ad-hoc basis after depositing a high licence fees. At present he is paying Rs. 75,000/- per annum as ad hoc licence fee for running a trolley. He submits that neither he nor his employees, engaged in trolley vending have any other means of livelihood. Furthermore he does not use any LPG Cylinders. 6. The Railway Ministry framed a catering policy on 21.12.2005 known as Revised Catering Policy 2005 for regulating catering service either departmentally (IRCTC) or through licence. The main objective of the Catering Policy is to provide hygienic and good quality food for all segment of travellers by use of professionals and state-of-art technology. The catering policy deals with various features of catering services including allotment of stalls. 7. The infrastructure aspect of the Catering Policy is stated in Clause 3.2 which reads as follows:- "The mobile trolleys at A, B and C category of stations should be progressively reduced. For this purpose trolleys should be gradually converted into stalls and new stalls be first distributed to trolley owners. The licence fee for such stalls should not be lower than the existing licence fee for similar stalls. For this purpose trolleys should be gradually converted into stalls and new stalls be first distributed to trolley owners. The licence fee for such stalls should not be lower than the existing licence fee for similar stalls. On island platforms multiple units can be considered at both the ends, with significant reduction in the middle of the platform." 8. Clause 10 deals with the allotment procedure. The catering service has been divided into two broad units, i.e., Major and Minor units. The major and minor units are described in Clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the catering policy. The Major units consist of Food courts, Food Plazas at any station and Refreshment Rooms at A category of stations, excluding attached facilities like stalls trolleys, Fast food units, Mobile catering units, Train side vending and AV Ms at all category of stations. Minor units are of two types-One is General Minor Units (GMU) and the other is Special Minor Units (SMU). The General Minor Units are 75% unreserved refreshment rooms at B and C category of stations and unreserved stalls and trolleys at A, B and C category of stations. The special Minor Units have 25% reserved refreshment rooms at B and C category of stations and 25% reserved stalls and trolleys at A, B and C category of stations. 9. Clause 10.5 provides that period of allotment would be of five years and it will be allotted by tender process. 10. The petitioner is aggrieved by the tender notice issued by IRCTC in Ist week of July, 2009 contained in Annexure-4 whereby tender has been made open to all, who fulfilled the eligibility criteria mentioned therein. According to him tender notice is in teeth of Clause 3.2 of the Revised Catering Policy. He submits that Clause 3.2. mandates that Trolleys should gradually be converted into stalls and new stalls should be first distributed to the trolley owners. Thus, the open tender inviting individuals or Firm/Company having experiences in handling and catering of food item though not necessarily having trolleys at railway stations, to participate in-allotment of stalls, is contrary to the policy decision of the Railway Ministry contained in 2005 Policy to distribute the stalls first to trolley owners. 11. The counsel for the IRCTC states that the licences of the petitioners expired on 30.6.2003. 11. The counsel for the IRCTC states that the licences of the petitioners expired on 30.6.2003. He further states that though the petitioners applied for renewal of licence, the same have not been renewed in view of 2005 Revised Policy. The petitioner has never challenged the non-renewal of licences. However, petitioners units have been granted temporary extensions till finalization of new tender in view of various letters of IRCTC dated 6.5.2008, 4.5.2009 and 21.7.2009, contained in Annexures-B, C and D. It has further been submitted that the petitioner cannot as a matter of right claim renewal of licence, as he does not belong to reserved category. Furthermore on date of issuance of tender notice, the petitioner was not having a valid licence for its trolleys. 12. It cannot be said that petitioner was running its trolleys without due authorization, as authorities allowed him to run trolleys on ad hoc basis on payment of fees. The IRCTC in its counter affidavit has admitted that petitioner applied for renewal of licences for its trolleys in 2003, however the same was not renewed but they were allowed to continue on ad hoc basis. 13. In my view the petitioner could not be faulted for non-renewal of licence, if they have applied for renewal of licence and were willing to pay the licence fee. There is no averment in counter affidavit that the petitioner had breached the terms of agreement. Neither railways nor IRCTC have passed any order even rejecting the renewal rather they have permitted the petitioners to run the trolleys on ad hoc basis in view of letters of railway Board and its own circulars. Thus it cannot be said that the trolleys used by petitioner is without due authorization and legal sanctity. 14. The issue which arises for consideration is whether the tender notice published by IRCTC is in teeth of Clause 3.2 of the Revised Catering Policy 2005. In this connection it would be relevant to notice the contents of Clause 3.2 which inter alia provides that the mobile trolleys at A, B and C category of stations should be progressively reduced. For achieving the aforesaid object, the trolleys should be gradually converted into stalls and new stalls be first distributed to trolley owners. In this connection it would be relevant to notice the contents of Clause 3.2 which inter alia provides that the mobile trolleys at A, B and C category of stations should be progressively reduced. For achieving the aforesaid object, the trolleys should be gradually converted into stalls and new stalls be first distributed to trolley owners. Thus, the policy of the Government is to gradually eliminate trolleys at A, B and C category stations and rehabilitate the trolley owners by first settling the stalls in their favour. The mode of allotments of new stall to these trolley vendors could be by way of tender as stipulated under Clause 10.5 to fetch a competitive price. 15. In my view, the petitioners of both the cases should first raise their grievance before the respondent no.3, the Group General Manager, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd., Eastern Zone Office, 3, Kolkatta. In case petitioners file such petitions before the respondent no.3, within 3 weeks from today with a copy of this order, he would dispose of the representations preferably within a period of three weeks thereof. Till then the tender papers filed by the aspirants will not be opened and considered, so far as it relates to stations where petitioners run their trolleys.