Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 835 (CAL)

Narbheram Vishram v. Union of India

2024-04-18

SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA

body2024
JUDGMENT : SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J. 1. The petitioner no. 1 is a partnership-Firm and the petitioner no. 2 is one of its partners. The firm carries on mining and mineral trading business in the States of Odisha and Jharkhand having its office at Kolkata and has been supplying critical raw materials in the form of iron-ore to the steel industry. 2. The Indian Railways issued a Circular bearing no. 99/TC (FM)/26/1 on March 31, 2005 thereby liberalizing rules relating to Railway sidings. Pursuant to the said Policy, the petitioners submitted a proposal for availing its own private railway siding at Bolani Khadan Railway Station for loading and transportation of iron-ore. The said proposal was approved and accordingly, the petitioner no. 1 commenced construction of the siding, for which permission was also given after initially withholding the same from 2010 to 2019 on the ground of fixing market value and licence fee. 3. In early 2020, the petitioners had already completed construction of the siding and asked the respondents to take steps for signing of the Land Licensing Agreement and early commissioning of the railway sidings. 4. The respondent-Authorities demanded payment of sums aggregating to Rs. 11,26,56,480/- on account of stacking charges. The petitioners moved this Court and vide order dated March 16, 2022, the claim of the respondents was quashed. 5. Meanwhile on December 15, 2021, the respondents-Railways had published a Master Circular on Gati Shakti Multi-Modal Cargo Terminal (GCT) which was further amended on June 14, 2022 and December 6, 2022. 6. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners argues that the insistence of the respondents that the petitioners agreed to enter into a Land Licensing Agreement under the 2021/2022 Policy is unjust and contrary to the agreement previously entered into between the parties. It is contended that the petitioners' railway siding was already ready for commissioning, for which in-principle approval was granted and trial runs of locomotives had already been undertaken after issuance of a Tack Fitness Certificate. A Completion Certificate was also formally issued, certifying that the private siding of the petitioners was complete and ready for commercial commissioning. By a letter dated April 21, 2020, the Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer of the Railways formally granted its approval certifying energization of OHE with 25 KV AC system in favour of the petitioner no. 1. 7. A Completion Certificate was also formally issued, certifying that the private siding of the petitioners was complete and ready for commercial commissioning. By a letter dated April 21, 2020, the Chief Electrical Distribution Engineer of the Railways formally granted its approval certifying energization of OHE with 25 KV AC system in favour of the petitioner no. 1. 7. As per Clauses 1.2 and 1.3 of the GCT Circular of 2022, existing and partly commissioned sidings are allowed to be governed by the previous Circulars and are given an option to migrate to GCT. It is argued that the arbitrary cut-off for sidings which were completed in all respects but were not yet commissioned is violative of natural justice. 8. It is argued that since the petitioners had invested huge amount by acting on the 2005 Circular, Land Licensing Agreement is to be executed under the said Circular. It is submitted that the Land Licensing Agreement could not be entered into only due to the unlawful insistence of the respondents on the petitioners paying a huge amount of Land Licence fees and Stacking Charges which was subsequently quashed by this Court. 9. The private siding of the petitioners at Bolani Khadan, it is argued, continues to be governed by the Circular dated March 31, 2005 since it has not been expressly repealed by the GCT Circular dated December 6, 2022. It is argued that the private siding of the petitioners could not be commercially commissioned only on account of the wrongful acts of the respondent-Authorities, of which the respondents cannot now take advantage. The respondents arbitrarily pressed in its letter dated February 3, 2020 that the petitioners pay a sum of Rs. 11,26,56,480/- towards stacking charges before commissioning of the private siding. By a judgment and order dated March 16, 2022 passed in WP No. 101 of 2012, this Court set aside the said claim. 10. The petitioners had also taken out a writ petition bearing WP(C) No. 4679 of 2019 before the Odisha High Court at Cuttack challenging the bills raised by the respondents in terms of the Freight Marketing Circular No. 12 of 2008 for land licence fees which was six times higher than the normal licensing fees. The permission of construction of the petitioners' siding was kept withheld till February 7, 2019 by the letter of the respondents dated March 11, 2010. 11. The permission of construction of the petitioners' siding was kept withheld till February 7, 2019 by the letter of the respondents dated March 11, 2010. 11. Subsequently, after contesting the writ petition before the Odisha High Court for five years, the respondent-Authorities clarified on September 12, 2018 that the judgment of this Court dated September 18, 2012 in W.P. No. 77 of 2010 and W.P. No. 830 of 2010 [M/s Deepak Steel and Power Ltd. and Another vs. Union of India and Others] would be implemented. 12. By a letter dated February 7, 2019, the respondents allowed the petitioners to reconvene the process of construction of the Railway siding and placed on record that before resumption of construction, the petitioners must take steps, inter-alia, to withdraw their pending writ before the High Court at Odisha. Accordingly, by a letter dated November 22, 2019, the petitioner no. 1 forwarded an affidavit of withdrawal of the said writ petition. By a letter dated January 10, 2020, the petitioner informed the respondents that the writ petition and the connected application had been withdrawn in terms of the pre-condition imposed by the respondents at a meeting dated December 4, 2019. It is mentioned that the respondents, by a letter dated January 21, 2020, shared a draft Land Licensing Agreement for execution. 13. It is further argued that despite several assurances that the Land Licensing Agreement would be executed, the respondent-Authorities frivolously delayed the same. Thus, the petitioners should be treated to be compliant of the 2021/2022 Circulars, having all but commissioned the railway sidings. 14. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners next argues that the respondents are estopped from arbitrarily denying the petitioners' exclusive usage of their private siding by virtue of the new Circular of 2022. 15. It is argued that administrative/executive orders or Circulars as the case may be, in the absence of any legislative competence, cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Only law could be made retrospectively if expressly provided by the Legislature in the statute. In support of such submission, learned senior counsel places reliance on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. Tata Communications Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 1280. 16. Only law could be made retrospectively if expressly provided by the Legislature in the statute. In support of such submission, learned senior counsel places reliance on Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. and Others vs. Tata Communications Ltd. 2022 SCC Online SC 1280. 16. Regarding the arguments of the Railways that the petitioners seek to resort to monopolistic trade practice, it is argued that the petitioners do not come within the purview of the Competition Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as, “the 2002 Act”) as outlined in Section 19, sub-sections (3) and (4) of the said Act. If such argument of the respondents is to be accepted, then all private sidings operating under non-GCT model are violative of the 2002 Act. The GCT Circular, it is argued, cannot be applied arbitrarily to the petitioners to single out the petitioners irrationally on the ground of competition and public interest, when numerous private sidings still exist on Railway property. 17. The respondents, it is argued, are bound by promissory estoppel. Courts have consistently emphasized the need to balance legitimate expectations with broader public interest to ensure fairness, reasonableness and justice. In support of such submission, learned senior counsel for the petitioners cites Union of India and Others vs. Anglo Afghan Agencies, AIR 1968 SC 718 and Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (1979) 2 SCC 409 . 18. It is argued that the 2016 Circular excludes all Railway sidings whose Detailed Project Report (DPR) had already been approved. Since the petitioners fell outside such exclusion clause, there was no reason to challenge the 2016 Circular. 19. It is argued that the petitioners have already stated by its letters dated December 1, 2020 and February 23, 2021 that with mines allocated at Barbil producing 3.5 Million Tonnes Per Annum (MTPA), expected traffic would be 1.4 MT (domestic) and 1.6 MT (export), totalling 3.0 MTPA. With operating plants in eastern India, the petitioners can make movement of two rakes per day, equating to 60 rakes per month. The Railways, it is argued, would find out very difficult to meet such requirement since traffic and overload is uncertain. 20. With operating plants in eastern India, the petitioners can make movement of two rakes per day, equating to 60 rakes per month. The Railways, it is argued, would find out very difficult to meet such requirement since traffic and overload is uncertain. 20. To counter the argument of the Railways that the GCT Circular gives absolute discretion to the petitioners to choose or prevent access to outsiders, learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance on Clauses 18 and 18.1 of Schedule 2 of the GCT Circular impugned herein. Thus, it is argued that the impugned action of the respondents should be set aside. 21. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the GCT 2022 seeks to restrict exclusive monopoly position without competition. It is argued that there cannot be any right to operate a private siding with exclusive monopoly right. Such right to operate has to be subject to Policy guidelines. 22. The fundamental principle of promissory estoppel is that if the promise is broken, the writ petitioner would suffer irreparable loss, injury and prejudice. However, in the present case, there was no promise that the Policy would not be changed in future. Moreover, under the new Policy, the writ petitioners get to choose exclusively who would be the authorized user who may use the facilities of the GCT vide Clauses 2.1(iii), (xi) and Clause 11.1 which gives exclusive right to the writ petitioner, as the GCT operator, to select and inform the authorized rail users. 23. There would not be any change of situation on the part of the petitioners so as to invoke the principles of promissory estoppel, since the petitioners still retain the right of exclusive choice as to the authorized users of the siding. 24. In fact, it is argued that the petitioners may charge a fee for allowing transportation of other authorized users. 25. Courts usually do not interfere in Policy matters, it is contended. In support of such argument, learned senior counsel for the Railways cites Reliance Telecom Limited and Another vs. Union of India and Another, (2017) 4 SCC 269 where the Apex Court held that the terms of invitation to tender are not open to judicial scrutiny. 26. Learned senior counsel highlights that the 2022 GCT Policy is a Policy decision and ought not to be interfered with readily by courts. 27. 26. Learned senior counsel highlights that the 2022 GCT Policy is a Policy decision and ought not to be interfered with readily by courts. 27. Since the siding is not commissioned in respect of the petitioners, the petitioners are not to be treated to come within the purview of the previous Policy in terms of the exclusion clause of the 2022 Policy. 28. With regard to land licensing fees, the petitioner withdrew its writ petition on December 23, 2019 and it cannot be said that the respondents were responsible for the delay. With regard to stacking charges, the writ petition was filed in 2012 and the petitioners having taken no steps, the same was dismissed for default on May 5, 2015. Subsequently restoration application was filed only in 2020 and the matter was restored on November 27, 2020. Even thereafter, the writ petitioners took several extensions to file affidavits, as evident from the order dated March 2, 2021. Thus, the respondents were not responsible for delay in the execution of the work. 29. The Union of India, it is argued, cannot have a Policy where particular sidings which were commissioned had to be non-private sidings. Learned senior counsel cites Union of India and Another vs. V.V.F. Limited and Another, (2020) 20 SCC 57 , in support of the argument that the Union of India has legal competence to frame Policy guidelines. 30. It is settled law, it was held, that the doctrine of promissory estoppel has no manner of application where public interest warrants otherwise. 31. The respondents also cite Kothari Industrial Corporation Limited vs. Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another, (2016) 4 SCC 134 for the proposition that withdrawal of concessional tariff/rebate cannot be challenged on the grounds of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. 32. The case of State of Jharkhand and Others vs. Brahmputra Metallics Limited, Ranchi and Another, (2023) 10 SCC 634 was not considered in Reliance Telecom Limited (supra) and V.V.F Limited (supra). Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) is not applicable, it is argued. Thus, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the writ petition ought to be dismissed. 33. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 34. The arguments on legitimate expectation are beside the point. The petitioners have based their case on a more elevated plane of promissory estoppel, or rather estoppel, and vested rights. 35. Thus, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents argues that the writ petition ought to be dismissed. 33. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 34. The arguments on legitimate expectation are beside the point. The petitioners have based their case on a more elevated plane of promissory estoppel, or rather estoppel, and vested rights. 35. The respondents have cited Kothari Industrial Corporation (supra) for the proposition that withdrawal of a concessional tariff/rebate cannot be challenged on the ground of promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. The present challenge is not on the power of the authorities to make or change their policies, but on how far the impact of a Policy decision takes away accrued rights. The respondents have also relied on VVF Limited (supra) regarding legal competence of the Union of India to frame Policy guidelines which cannot be disputed. Where promissory estoppel is pleaded, the same cannot be override public interest as well. 36. Yet, the fact remains that certain rights had already accrued in favour of the petitioners, whether on the basis of the doctrine of promissory estoppel or vested rights on a higher footing of unadulterated estoppel. To understand the scope and strength of the petitioners' rights, the said rights are to be looked into. 37. The 2005 Policy of Liberalization of Sidings Rules finds place in the Circular dated March 31, 2005 issued by the Ministry of Railways, Government of India through the Railway Board. The entity which constructs the siding has been referred to as “siding owner” which gives a clue to the nature of rights contemplated thereunder. By a communication dated September 22, 2006, the Railways approved in-principle the petitioner's proposal of owning a private siding under the said Policy. 38. On December 7, 2007, by a further communication, the South Eastern Railway finally approved the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in connection with such siding of the petitioners. The balance work was approved on February 24, 2020. 39. Joint trial run was held after issuance of Track Fit Certificate in favour of the petitioner on March 4, 2020. On March 4, 2021 itself and on March 19, 2021 the trailing of Loco Engine and Electric Tower Cabin was done. 40. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the siding became ready for commencement of commercial operations before the impugned Circulars of 2021 and 2022 came into being. 41. On March 4, 2021 itself and on March 19, 2021 the trailing of Loco Engine and Electric Tower Cabin was done. 40. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the siding became ready for commencement of commercial operations before the impugned Circulars of 2021 and 2022 came into being. 41. It is to be noted that at every stage, the petitioner acted on the approvals given by the Railway Authority in terms of the 2005 Policy. The petitioners invested heavy amounts and acted fully on the basis of such approvals of the Authorities themselves. 42. Moving on to the effect of the impugned Circulars on the rights which accrued in favour of the petitioners and other similarly placed entities, the arguments made by the respondents that the rights of the petitioners remained the same under both the 2005 and 2022 regimes is found to be an incorrect narrative which is not in consonance with the facts of the case. 43. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioners retained their right of choice over the users of the Railway siding. Reliance has been placed on Clauses 2.1 and 11.1 on such count. 44. Clause 2.1 defines the key terms of the 2022 Policy. “Authorized Users” have been defined as Rail users authorized by the GCT operator to make use of the facilities at a GCT. Such definition is found in sub-clause (iii) of Clause 2.1. 45. Again, a “Private Siding” has been defined in sub-clause (xv) as privately owned siding constructed by a customer at its own cost for railway cargo services at the premises of its plant, or manufacturing unit or production unit, or mine, etc. connecting the customer's works with the railway system. 46. However, moving on, we find that Clause 5.1.3 stipulates that for migration for existing terminals to the new Policy the GCT operators will be required to transfer the ownership of assets to the railway free of cost. Although such Clause may not be much relevant, since the question here is whether the petitioner is at all an existing operator under the new regime, we are to look into Clause 11.1 in proper context. 47. Clause 11.1 stipulates that the operator shall inform the Railway about the authorized Rail users of the GCT before notification so that they may be incorporated in the TNS module of FOIS. 47. Clause 11.1 stipulates that the operator shall inform the Railway about the authorized Rail users of the GCT before notification so that they may be incorporated in the TNS module of FOIS. Clause 11.2 provides that if the operator decides to add more Rail users subsequently, it shall inform the Railway seven days in advance to enable incorporation of such Rail users in FOIS. The respondents rely on the said provision to argue that the operator (petitioner No. 1) still retains the option as to whom to allow or not as users of the siding. 48. However, such argument is belied by Clause 18 of Schedule 2 of the said Policy. Clause 18, in no uncertain terms provides that the GCT located completely or partially on Railway land will remain a common-user facility and the GCT operator shall ensure non-discriminatory access for all Rail-customers/potential customers to such Terminals. Further, the operator will not prevent any Rail-customer/potential customer from accessing Terminal. Road access to the GCT will not be blocked by the GCT operator as well. 49. Thus, discretion of the operator is completely taken away by introducing Clause 18 of Schedule 2 which prevents the operator from having any say in the matter of user of the siding. If the access is non-discriminatory, any and every potential user shall have to be permitted to use the siding, irrespective of the consent of the petitioner No. 1. 50. Read with the said Clause, Clause 11.1 merely enumerates the obligation of the operator to inform the Railway beforehand about the “authorized” rail users of the GCT. 51. The freedom of the operator to use the siding exclusively, which was conferred by the 2005 Policy, is completely taken away by the 2022 Circular. The operator is now denuded of any option in the matter. Clause 18.1 of Schedule 2 merely offers a “consolation prize” to the operator by permitting it to charge fees for handling (loading and unloading) of cargo at a GCT which, in any event, can be legitimately charged by the operator, since it is the entity which is saddled with the liability to so handle. Significantly, no extra user charge can be imposed by the GCT operator at all. 52. Hence, the new Policy heralds a regime where the exclusivity of usage and choice of the operator as to the users is completely taken away. Significantly, no extra user charge can be imposed by the GCT operator at all. 52. Hence, the new Policy heralds a regime where the exclusivity of usage and choice of the operator as to the users is completely taken away. Casting a glance at the 2005 Policy, as mentioned earlier, the operator is mentioned as a “siding owner.” Not only that, in the supplementary minutes of the meeting of the PHOD dated December 4, 2019, annexed at page 129 of the writ petition, it is clearly mentioned in Clause 4(iii), that the sidings will be allowed to exist on Railway land as private entities with exclusive right. In Clause 6 of the said minutes, the petitioner No. 1 is permitted to construct and commission its siding on Railway land and review of land value and land license fee for possession of the Railway land from October 2007 in terms of Master Circular 2005, thus sealing the rights of the petitioner No. 1 in that regard. The license fees were also enumerated in the same minutes, including a clause of renewal. 53. Hence, we see a paradigm shift between the rights conferred on the petitioner No. 1 by the 2005 Circular, as also interpreted in the subsequent minutes of the Railway Authorities, and the subsequent 2021 and 2022 Circulars. Thus, there cannot be any doubt that the rights which were vested by the 2005 Circular have been completely taken away by the 2021 and 2022 Circulars. 54. Next comes the issue of monopoly, harped on so much by the respondents. It is the respondent's stand that by introduction of the new Circular, they seek to cut off monopoly. In fact, anti-competition arguments have also been advanced by the respondents. 55. The Competition Act, 2002 is to be looked into in such context. Section 3 of the said Act defines anti-competitive agreements and Section 19 thereof stipulates the scope of enquiry into certain agreements and dominant position of enterprise, none of which clearly apply to the private sidings or the nature of the same which are in question here. 56. It is to be noted that the exclusivity conferred on the siding owners is restricted to the operator's own private Railway siding which is situated away from the main Railway tracks and is merely connected to the main Railway track. 56. It is to be noted that the exclusivity conferred on the siding owners is restricted to the operator's own private Railway siding which is situated away from the main Railway tracks and is merely connected to the main Railway track. Thus, it does not confer any monopoly whatsoever on the GCT operator over use of the Railway track by the general public. The Railways still retain the “monopoly” over usage of its own track and the private sidings of the petitioner are situated on a detour from the said tracks, thus, not infringing the use of the public of the Railway tracks in any manner. Hence, the argument of monopoly is not applicable to the present case at all. 57. The petitioners have all along acted on the clear promises and approvals granted time to time by the Railway authorities and have invested huge amounts and made their siding operational. At this juncture, it would be a travesty of the principles of natural justice as well as estoppel to interdict such rights by introducing retroactivity in a subsequent Policy decision. 58. The 2021/2022 Policy, although not retrospective as such, the same has a retroactive element insofar as non-commissioned sidings are concerned. Thus, a line has been drawn on the pivot of whether the sidings have been commissioned or not. 59. As we have discussed above, public interest is not affected in any manner if the petitioners have exclusive rights over the sidings built and made operational by them at huge expenditure of time, money and other resources, away from but connected to the main Railway tracks. 60. The next consideration is whether the fact that the petitioners' siding has not yet started commercial operations is fatal in the present context. The respondents lay much stress on the petitioner no. 1 withdrawing its writ petition before the Odisha High Court challenging the land license fees. However, the documents annexed to the writ petition clearly go on to show that the petitioners acted solely on the promise made by the respondents to commission the siding to the petitioners subject to the petitioners withdrawing all litigation. Hence, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own act by arguing that the land license fees were frivolously challenged by the petitioners and as such the respondents were not responsible for the delay caused on the dispute on such fees. 61. Hence, the respondents cannot take advantage of their own act by arguing that the land license fees were frivolously challenged by the petitioners and as such the respondents were not responsible for the delay caused on the dispute on such fees. 61. Insofar as the stacking charges are concerned, the same were also one of the sticking points, since the Railway insisted persistently that the petitioners pay such exorbitant stacking charges in order for the petitioners to have their siding commissioned. However, the illegality of such claim was endorsed by the victory of the petitioners in the writ petition challenging the same in this Court, whereby the claim of stacking charges was set aside. Hence, such claim of the respondents, which was one of the deterrents in the commissioning of the siding, was proved to be unlawful. The petitioners cannot be held liable for the prolonged non-commissioning due to the respondents' insistence on payment of such stacking charges, which was turned down by the court. Rather, the petitioners' resistance to such unlawful claim has been vindicated by their writ petition being allowed. 62. Thus, on a comprehensive assessment of the materials on record, it is seen that the non-commissioning was primarily due to the action of the respondents and the petitioners could not be held liable for such delay and cannot be penalized on such ground. 63. In the above context, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (supra) acquires immense relevance. The Supreme Court held there that the power to make retrospective legislation enables the Legislature to obliterate an amending Act completely and restore the law as it existed before the amending Act, but at the same time, administrative/executive orders or circulars, as the case may be, in the absence of any legislative competence, cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect. Only law could be made retrospectively if it was expressly provided by the Legislature in the Statute. The said principle is germane in the present context as well. 64. In Brahmputra Metallics Limited (supra), the Supreme Court considered all previous judgments on the field of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. It was observed, inter-alia, that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 finds complete expression. 64. In Brahmputra Metallics Limited (supra), the Supreme Court considered all previous judgments on the field of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel. It was observed, inter-alia, that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is one of the ways in which the guarantee of non-arbitrariness enshrined under Article 14 finds complete expression. Legitimate expectation in the said case was held to be not merely grounded on analogy with the doctrine of promissory estoppel but a valid doctrine in its own right. 65. The respondents have placed reliance on V.V.F. Limited (supra), where the Supreme Court observed that where public interest so warrants, the principle of promissory estoppel cannot be enforced. 66. Apart from the fact that, as discussed above, public interest is not affected by operation of the Railway sidings, since they are set apart from the main Railway track and do not interfere with the user of the same by the public, paragraphs 24.4 and 25 of V.V.F. Limited (supra) itself discusses that the notifications/industrial policies considered therein did not take away any vested right conferred under the earlier notifications/industrial policies. On such premise only, the Supreme Court observed that the subsequent policies could not be said to be hit by the doctrine of promissory estoppel. Per contra, the 2021/2022 Policy definitely takes away vested rights of the petitioners and other similarly placed operators. 67. Kothari Industrial (supra) is not relevant in the present context at all. There, it was held that the recipient of a concession has no legally enforceable right against the Government to the grant of a concession except enjoying the benefits of concession during the period of its grant. 68. The rights conferred under the 2005 Policy and subsequently consolidated by the different approvals granted by the respondents themselves stand on a much higher footing than a mere rebate or a concession. The petitioners acted, invested and blocked resources on the basis of the promise given out by the respondents and do not rely on a mere expectation of a concession or rebate. The rights claimed by the petitioners stand on the firm premise of already vested rights and promissory estoppel and not merely a right to get a fresh concession in a new Policy. The endeavour of the petitioners is to protect their already vested rights and not to seek a concession similar to that granted by a previous Policy in a new Policy. 69. The endeavour of the petitioners is to protect their already vested rights and not to seek a concession similar to that granted by a previous Policy in a new Policy. 69. The reliance of the respondents on Reliance Telecom (supra) is rather misplaced. It was reiterated there that legitimate expectation cannot override public interest, which principle is not applicable in terms in the present case, as discussed above. 70. Thus, on a comprehensive assessment of the citations made by the parties, the strong case made out by the petitioners has not been displaced. 71. Now let us come to the most important facet of the instant lis. A proper interpretation of the 2021/2022 Policy is required to ascertain whether the petitioners are actually excluded from its purview on a purposive construction of the same. 72. The crux of the Policy is reflected in the Master Circular on GCT dated December 06, 2022, annexed at page 319 onwards of the writ petition. Clause 3.0 thereof stipulates that the revised provisions shall be applicable to all new Terminals commissioned from the date of issue of the Circular. GCTs already commissioned before issue of the Circular shall continue to be governed by their existing agreements. 73. Hence, the applicability of the Master Circular depends on the key factor of commissioning. 74. The expression “commissioning” has not been defined anywhere in the Master Circular. However, considerable light is shed on the GCT Policy by the provisions of the said Master Circular. 75. Clause 1.3 of the said Policy clearly states that sidings that have been “partially commissioned (i.e. partially operational, with next phase under construction or under planning/approval) before 15.12.2021” are to continue to be governed by the Policy guidelines under which their first phase was commissioned. 76. Hence, the entire gamut of the respondents' contemplation of “commissioned” boils down to the expression “operational.” “Commissioned” has been equated with “operational” in Clause 1.3. Apart from the said clause, there is no other indication of the meaning of “commissioned” in the entire Policy. 77. 76. Hence, the entire gamut of the respondents' contemplation of “commissioned” boils down to the expression “operational.” “Commissioned” has been equated with “operational” in Clause 1.3. Apart from the said clause, there is no other indication of the meaning of “commissioned” in the entire Policy. 77. Even on a literal construction of the said definition, “operational” as per its Dictionary meaning, includes “ready for use” and “able to be used” apart from “already functional.” Thus, to become “commissioned” under the 2021/2022 Policy, a Railway siding need not necessarily have started commercial operations but it is sufficient if it is “ready for use” and/or “able to be used.” As discussed above, the petitioners' siding has not only been constructed and the DPR approved, joint trial run has already been held after issuance of Track Fit Certificate on March 4, 2020. Loco engine and electric tower cabin has been trailed on March 4, 2021 and March 19, 2021 respectively. 78. All the above events happened before December 15, 2021, which is the cut-off date for commissioning under Clause 1.3 of the 2022 Policy. Hence, even under the definition of “commissioned” in the 2022 Policy, which is entirely pivoted around the expression “operational” the petitioner No. 1 squarely comes within the purview of the saving clause of the 2022 Policy itself, thereby being entitled to a continuance of the Policy guidelines under which the first phase was made operational. Hence, even without any purposive construction, the literal meaning of the term “commissioned” as used in the 2022 Policy guidelines brings the petitioner No. 1 within the fold of the new Policy. 79. Thus, seen from every perspective, the respondents cannot take away the vested rights of the petitioners as per their own policies floated from time to time, compelling the petitioners to open up their owned Railway siding indiscriminately for the public. Such opening up would take away not only the exclusivity conferred on the petitioners but will directly affect their business as well, since even after investing so much resources and time, the petitioners will be relegated from owners of the siding to mere handling operators, having no say on who uses the Railway siding, apparently on a “first come first serve” basis, which will drastically curtail the petitioners' rights of user and relegate the petitioners themselves to the rear end of the queue of users. 80. 80. Hence, the petitioners have sufficiently justified their claim in their present writ petition. 81. Accordingly, WPA No. 28484 of 2022 is allowed on contest, thereby holding that the petitioner No. 1 comes within the saving clause of the GCT Circulars dated December 15, 2021 and December 6, 2022, thus being governed under the 2005 Circular, having exclusive rights over its Railway siding. 82. The respondent no. 2 is, accordingly, directed to execute Land Licensing Agreement in favour of the petitioner no. 1 within four weeks from date. Immediately thereafter, the respondents shall ensure that all formalities regarding the petitioner no. 1 commencing its commercial operations in respect of the subject Railway siding are completed within a further period of eight weeks thereafter. 83. CAN 2 of 2024 and CAN 3 of 2024 are accordingly disposed of. 84. There will be no order as to costs. Later After the above judgment is passed, a prayer is made for stay of operation of the order. However, since four weeks have been granted in the above judgment to the respondents to comply, sufficient time is available accordingly to prefer an appeal. Accordingly, the prayer for stay is refused.