Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 712 (MP)

M. L. Suri @ Sons v. Union of India

2015-07-13

S.K.GANGELE

body2015
ORDER 1. Heard on I.A. No. 12005/2014, an application for vacating the interim order dated 7.7.2014. The petitioners have challenged the Catering Policy, 2010. Petitioners pleaded that they have granted licence to run a vegetarian Refreshment Room at Railway Station Satna, Sagar and Katni. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners admitted the fact that the licence issued in favour of the petitioners was expired in the year 2013 thereafter, the petitioners submitted an application for renewal of licence and that application is still pending. In the meanwhile the Railway invited applications for allotment of Jan Ahar at Katni, Sagar and Satna Railway Station. The petitioner No.1 and 3 participated in the bid process, however the bid of M/s. A.S. Sales Corporation, Itarsi was highest. He deposited advance licence fee of one year of Rs.28,11,000/-. On 1.7.2014 he also deposited security amount of Rs.14,05,500/- in comparison to this the petitioner K.L. Sahni has licence of Katni Railway Station. He is paying Rs. 2,54,544/-and the railway is suffering loss due to the stay order granted by this Court. The petitioner filed additional documents and produced certain documents to the effect that the petitioner was directed to deposit the licence fee. However, the fact remains that licence of the petitioners have not been extended so far. The period of original licence was expired on 20.5.2005. The extension was granted to the petitioners temporarily on the ground that allotment of Jan Ahar Scheme was under consideration before the competent authority. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that this Court vide order dated 7.7.2014 ordered that the petitioner No.3 shall not be displaced from RRM situated at Katni platform upto passing further order or modification of the aforesaid interim order by the apex Court. Respondents have granted liberty to file an appropriate application for reconsideration of this interim order immediately after passing any effective further orders by the apex Court. Hence, the petitioner K.L. Sahni has a right to continue to work. In the present case it is clear that there is no licence in favour of the petitioners and the period of licence has already expired, it has not been renewed. Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the bid and their bid was lowest and was not upto the mark. Hence, the petitioner K.L. Sahni has a right to continue to work. In the present case it is clear that there is no licence in favour of the petitioners and the period of licence has already expired, it has not been renewed. Subsequently, the petitioner participated in the bid and their bid was lowest and was not upto the mark. M/s. A.S. Sales Corporation offered highest bid and as mentioned earlier in this order , the railways is suffering loss of an amount of near about Rs.26,00,000/-per annum. The petitioner M/s. K.L. Sahni is paying the licence fee of Rs. 2,54,554/- however, M/s. A.S. Sales Corporation has offered highest bid of Rs.28,11,000/- per annum as licence fee. The Supreme Court in the matter of Seema Arshad Zaheer and others v. Municipal Corpn. Of Greater Mumbai and others [ (2006)5 SCC 282 ], has held as under in regard to grant of injunction by the Court : “The discretion of the Court is exercised to grant a temporary injunction only when the following requirement are made out by the plaintiff: (I) existence of a prima facie case is pleaded, necessitating protection of the plaintiff's rights by issue of a temporary injunction; (ii) when the need for protection of the plaintiff's rights is compared with or weighed against the need for protection of the defendant's rights or likely infringement of the defendant's rights, the balance of convenience tilting in favour of the plaintiff;(iii) clear possibility of irreparable injury being caused to the plaintiff if the temporary injunction is not granted. In addition, temporary injunction being an equitable relief, the discretion to grant such relief will be exercised only when the plaintiff's conduct is free from blame and he approaches the Court with clean hands.” 3. The same principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the matter of Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and another [ (2002)3 SCC 65 ]. The Supreme Court has held that the plaintiff must prove prima facie case, balance of convenience in his favour and is suffering an irreparable injury in the absence of grant of injunction. 4. The principle as laid down by the Supreme Court is that the parties has to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss if they want stay or injunction in their favour. In the present case there is no licence in favour of the petitioners. 4. The principle as laid down by the Supreme Court is that the parties has to establish prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss if they want stay or injunction in their favour. In the present case there is no licence in favour of the petitioners. The bid of the petitioner was not found competitive. Apart from this the railway will suffer an irreparable loss and injuries if the petitioner K. L. Sahni be permitted to continue to work without any licence. In the earlier order passed by this Court these facts have not been considered, simple fact has been considered that the catering policy of 2010 of the Railway is under challenge before the Supreme Court. However, mere challenging the catering policy, the petitioners have no right to continue the operation without any licence. If the petitioners be permitted to continue then there will be irreparable loss to the railway. The Court has power to modify the stay order under changed circumstances. 5. In this view of the matter, application is allowed. Interim order passed in favour of the petitioners dated 7.7.2014 is hereby vacated.