ORDER T. Rajani, J. WP No. 17541 of 2019 1. Aggrieved by the order, dated 15.10.2019, passed by the respondents 3 and 4, directing the petitioner to submit an affidavit declaring that the licensee is not having more than one catering unit in his name/benami, the petitioner by way of this writ petition seeks to set aside the said order. WP No. 17165 of 2019 Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in insisting the petitioner to submit an affidavit in terms of Commercial Circular No. 22, dated 15.3.2017 for running the catering stall on Platform No. 1 and fruit stall on Platform Nos. 2 and 3 at Tenali Railway Station, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 2. Since the subject-matter of these writ petitions is one and the same, these writ petitions are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The facts in WP No. 17541 of 2019, briefly, leading to the present dispute are as follows: The petitioner is in the business of running fruits and catering stalls at railway stations. The petitioner applied for allotment of Special Minor Unit (SMU) platform catering stall on PF Nos. 2 and 3 at Gudivada Railway Station reserved for minorities' category. He was allotted on the basis of commercial and technical evaluation vide letter, dated 1.9.2014. The petitioner entered into a Master License Agreement, dated 1.1.2015. The tenure of the license is for a period of five years with a provision of further renewal for a period of three years on satisfactory performance. The licensee is required to apply for renewal, minimum six months in advance before the expiry of the contract. Since the term of five years is going to expire on 12.11.2014, the petitioner sought for renewal vide letter, dated 1.4.2019. But to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, respondents issued the impugned order stating that the renewal application is yet to be received by the respondents and that the petitioner would be required to state on affidavit declaring that the petitioner is not having more than one catering unit under his/benami's name. But to the utter shock and surprise of the petitioner, respondents issued the impugned order stating that the renewal application is yet to be received by the respondents and that the petitioner would be required to state on affidavit declaring that the petitioner is not having more than one catering unit under his/benami's name. The respondents relied on Railway Board Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 issued vide Reference No. 2013/TG-III/6000/19, dated 15.3.2017, to pass the impugned order, wherein it has been stated that if a licensee holds more than one unit under single or multiple licenses, one should forgo all other units except the unit one wishes to be renewed. The copy of the commercial circular was issued by the Ministry of Railways pursuant to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager and others v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and another, 2016 (3) ALD 40 (SC) : (2016) 3 SCC 582 . The Hon'ble Supreme Court read the provisions of Catering Policy 2010 into the provisions of the Contract, which ordinarily talks about only one renewal on the basis of satisfactory performance. The Supreme Court said the licensee may be eligible for renewal even after the first renewal was granted as envisaged under the contract on a condition that he would submit on affidavit as explained above. The Ministry of Railways issued a circular, dated 21.5.2019, advising all the zonal railways to maintain status quo in respect of all minor catering units as existed as on 31.3.2019 over Indian Railways till further orders are issued from the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways in view of the orders passed by the High Court of Delhi and Supreme Court. The said circular advised the Zonal Railways to renew all the licenses held by the cooperative societies, partnership firms and HUF. It was further stated to continue the status quo ordered vide circular dated 21.5.2019 with respect to all other minor static catering units till further orders. Till date the status quo ordered has not been disturbed by the Railway Board. The initial period of five years is going to expire on 12.11.2019 and the respondents are entitled for renewal for another three years. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. No counters are filed by the respondents. 5. Till date the status quo ordered has not been disturbed by the Railway Board. The initial period of five years is going to expire on 12.11.2019 and the respondents are entitled for renewal for another three years. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable. 4. No counters are filed by the respondents. 5. Heard the arguments of Sri Avinash Desai, learned Counsel for the petitioner in WP No. 17541 of 2019; Sri A. Sreedhar, learned Counsel or the petitioner in WP No. 17165 of 2019; and Sri Potluri Bhaskar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents in both the writ petitions. 6. The only argument of the Counsel for the petitioner is that the Supreme Court judgment in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager's case (supra), can be made applicable only to the 2nd renewal and not to the 1st renewal to which the petitioner is automatically entitled to under Catering Policy 2010. A reading of the aforesaid judgment itself would be beneficial to understand the purport of the said judgment and to appreciate the contention of the petitioner's Counsel. 7. In the aforesaid case, the Supreme Court dealt with a case pertaining to Catering Policy, 2005 under which, clause pertaining to the renewal for three years is not available. It was observed therein that the Single Judge of the High Court, against whose order the petitioners therein approached the Supreme Court, came to the conclusion that the 2010 Policy did not classify the licensees into two categories viz., those who were granted licences prior to the commencement of the 2010 policy and those who were granted licences after the enactment of the said Policy and that irrespective of whether the licences were granted by the Railways prior to 2005 or by IRCTC from 2005 and by the Railways after 2010, renewal of licences is envisaged for all these categories of licensees subject to their fulfillment of the requirements stipulated under the Policy. The Supreme Court in the above said judgment held that the provisions of Catering Policy, 2010 are applicable to the respondents concerned and the action of the Railways in not granting renewals of the licences to the members of the respondents is arbitrary. The Supreme Court in the above said judgment held that the provisions of Catering Policy, 2010 are applicable to the respondents concerned and the action of the Railways in not granting renewals of the licences to the members of the respondents is arbitrary. Having held as such, it also held that however, only those licensees may be eligible for renewal of their licences, who can declare on affidavit that they do not have the licence of more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami licence at the railway stations with periodical reasonable increase of licence fee. Arriving at such conclusion, the Supreme Court considered the argument of the Additional Solicitor General, who places reliance on Lala Ram v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 813 , wherein at Paragraph 9 the Supreme Court held as follows. "A welfare state denotes a concept of Government, in which the State plays a key role in the protection and promotion of the economic and social well-being of all of its citizens, which may include equitable distribution of wealth and equal opportunities and public responsibilities for all those, who are unable to avail for themselves, minimal provisions for a decent life. It refers to "Greatest good of greatest number and the benefit of all and the happiness of all". It is important that public weal be the commitment of the State, where the State is a welfare State. A welfare State is under an obligation to prepare plans and devise beneficial schemes for the good of the common people. Thus, the fundamental feature of a Welfare State is social insurance. Anti-poverty programmes and a system of personal taxation are examples of certain aspects of a Welfare State. A Welfare State provides State sponsored aid for individuals from the cradle to the grave. However, a Welfare State faces basic problems as regards what should be the desirable level of provision of such welfare services by the State, for the reason that equitable provision of resources to finance services over and above the contributions of direct beneficiaries would cause difficulties. A welfare State is one, which seeks to ensure maximum happiness of maximum number of people living within its territory. A welfare State is one, which seeks to ensure maximum happiness of maximum number of people living within its territory. A welfare State must attempt to provide all facilities for decent living, particularly to the poor, the weak, the old and the disabled i.e., to all those, who admittedly belong to the weaker sections of society. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India provide that the State must strive to promote the welfare of the people of the State by protecting all their economic, social and political rights. These rights may cover, means of livelihood, health and the general well-being of all sections of people in society, specially those of the young, the old, the women and the relatively weaker sections of the society. These groups generally require special protection measures in almost every set up. The happiness of the people is the ultimate aim of a welfare State, and a welfare State would not qualify as one, unless it strives to achieve the same." The Assistant Solicitor General further placed reliance on the case of Ram & Shyam Company v. State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 , relevant paragraph of which is quoted hereunder: "12. Let us put into focus the clearly demarcated approach that distinguishes the use and disposal of private property and socialist property. Owner of private property may deal with it in any manner he likes without causing injury to anyone else. But the socialist or if that word is jarring to some, the community or further the public property has to be dealt with for public purpose and in public interest. The marked difference lies in this that while the owner of private property may have a number of considerations which may permit him to dispose of his property for a song. On the other hand, disposal of public property partakes the character of a trust in that in its disposal there should be nothing hanky panky and that it must be done at the best price so that larger revenue coming into the coffers of the State administration would serve public purpose viz., the welfare State may be able to expand its beneficent activities by the availability of larger funds. This is subject to one important limitation that socialist property may be disposed at a price lower than the market price or even for a token price to achieve some defined constitutionally recognised public purpose, one such being to achieve the goals set out in Part-IV of the Constitution. But where disposal is for augmentation of revenue and nothing else, the State is under an obligation to secure the best market price available in a market economy. An owner of private property need not auction it nor is he bound to dispose if of at a current market price. Factors such as personal attachment, or affinity, kinship, empathy, religious sentiment or limiting the choice to whom he may be willing to sell, may permit him to sell the property at a song and without demur. A welfare State as the owner of the public property has no such freedom while disposing of the public property. A welfare State exists for the largest good of the largest number more so when it proclaims to be a socialist State dedicated to eradication of poverty. All its attempt must be to obtain the best available price while disposing of its property because the greater the revenue, the welfare activities will get a fillip and shot in the arm. Financial constraint may weaken the tempo of activities. Such an approach serves the larger public purpose of expanding welfare activities primarily for which the Constitution envisages the setting up of a welfare State. (Emphasis supplied)" 8. From the above, it is clear that the Supreme Court, after considering the reliance placed by the Assistant Solicitor General on the above cases, has appreciated that a welfare State is one which seeks to ensure maximum happiness to maximum number of people living within its territory and that it was the reason for the Supreme Court to specify that the licensees who submit licences seeking for renewal have to submit their affidavits that they do not have one shop or kiosk in their name or benami. 9. The argument of the Counsel for the petitioner that the said condition can be applied only for the 2nd renewal is not on any merited basis as the 2010 Policy provides for only one renewal. 9. The argument of the Counsel for the petitioner that the said condition can be applied only for the 2nd renewal is not on any merited basis as the 2010 Policy provides for only one renewal. The Supreme Court keeping in view the evolving concept of social justice allowed the members of respondents therein, who are the licensees, to continue their petty business, especially in the absence of employment potentiality in the country on account of non-governance and non-implementation of the constitutional philosophy of an egalitarian society, which provides the opportunity to all individuals to lead a life of dignity and specified that affidavit as mentioned above is mandatory. 10. It is not the case of the petitioners in both writ petitions that they are ready to give such affidavits. Even if the applications for renewal are accepted as received by the respondents, since the petitioners are not ready to comply with the mandate of the Supreme Court to file their respective affidavits that they own only one shop or kiosk, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions. However, in respect of WP No. 17541 of 2019, there shall be stay of eviction of the petitioner, if the petitioner is not already evicted, in respect of the subject stall, till 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in order to facilitate the petitioner to prefer appeal. 11. With the above observations, both the writ petitions are dismissed. As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.