ORDER : M.R SHAH, J. 1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 14th February 2011 passed in Special Civil Application No. 15150 of 2010, by which the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition, the original petitioner has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. We have heard Shri Ashish M Dagli, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicant at length. 3. That, the original petitioner was granted license to run a stall on the Railway Station at Jetalsar for selling ‘Bhajiya’. That thereafter, one M/s. Ashok Kumar & Bros. was granted a license on 25th September 2010 of Vegetarian Refreshment Room for serving break-fast items, lunch and dinner to the passengers of various trains Exh. Rajkot Jn. to Veraval section. The said decision of 2010 came to be challenged by the petitioner on the ground that it would affect the right of the petitioner to sale Bhajiya. The said challenge has been negatived by the learned Single Judge and his petition came to be dismissed. At this stage, it is required to be noted that by now seven years have passed and the respondent no. 4 [newly added] is running a Canteen on the Railway Station, since last more than seven years. From the affidavit-in-reply filed in the main petition, it appears that a conscious decision was taken in favour of the original respondent no. 4 [newly added party] and was accordingly granted Vegetarian Refreshment Room license at Jetalsar Railway Station for selling various food items; which includes selling of “Bhajiya”. The petitioner was not a Refreshment Room contractor, but was only a stall contractor. He cannot insist that no other person can be permitted to sell Bhajiya; except him. The decision in favour of the original respondent no. 4 was absolutely in consonance with the policy of the Railway authorities and as per the license of Vegetarian Refreshment Room. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no substance in the present Letters Patent Appeal, and therefore, the present Appeal deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground alone. On merits, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons aforestated, the present Letters Patent Appeal fails and the same is dismissed accordingly.