JUDGEMENT : P.Sam Koshy, J. 1. Heard Mr.E.Madan Mohan Rao, learned senior counsel representing Mr.K.R.K.V.Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for respondents. 2. The instant is the Writ Appeal preferred by the writ petitioner assailing the order dated 08.01.2026 passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.35836 of 2025. 3. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge had while dismissing the writ petition refused to entertain the writ seeking for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus against the respondents for grant of renewal to the catering license with the petitioner as for the tea stall license at the Kachiguda Railway Station that was dealt with the petitioner. 4. The primary contention of the writ petitioner was that, the learned Single Judge has failed to take note of the application for renewal of the license in terms of the present operational Catering Policy. It was also contention of the petitioner that the learned Single Judge has also not taken into consideration the fact that the Catering Policy, 2010 stood subsequently superseded which was also not referred to and dealt with in the course of passing of the impugned order and the order of rejection of renewal of license is in contravention with the subsequent Catering Policy. Lastly it was contended that the learned Single Judge also ought to have appreciated the fact that it is the question of the livelihood of the petitioner more particularly when on the earlier occasion he was granted the tea stall license after surrendering all other tea stall licenses at other railway stations. 5. Be that as it may, undisputedly the Master License Agreement i.e., entered into between the appellant and the respondent No.1 dated 18.11.2022. The said agreement categorically has a clause dealing with tenure of the agreement which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder: ARTICLE-2: TENURE OF THIS AGREEMENT: 2.1 The date of commencement of this agreement will be as provided for in Article 1.1 above. The tenure of this agreement will be Three (03) years for units located in A1, A, B and C category Railway stations. The tenure in the case of units located in D, E, F category stations will be Five (05) years. The tenure of this agreement will be Three (03) years for units located in A1, A, B and C category Railway stations. The tenure in the case of units located in D, E, F category stations will be Five (05) years. As this unit is situated in "A" Category Station, the tenure of this agreement will be 03 years from the date of commencement i.e., the actual date of renewal of the license i.e. from 30/07/2022 to 29/07/2025. 2.2.Renewal of the License: Renewal of this agreement is not a matter of right of the licensee. This agreement is eligible for renewal at the end of the tenure subject to (a) Satisfactory performance of the licensee during the tenure of this agreement. Railway will evolve, in due course, the criteria and parameters of satisfactory performance. Those criteria, as and when notified by Railways, will be automatically applicable to this agreement/ license. (b) License fee and other applicable charges (including fines levied from time to time) well in time shall be paid and as per the due dates. No dues certificate from the concerned authorities should be enclosed along with the application for renewal. (c) Submitting a fresh affidavit declaring that he does not have any other catering unit except the renewed unit on Indian Railways. (d) The licensee must apply for renewal minimum six months before the date of expiry of this agreement. (e) Signing a rider agreement duly incorporating changes in policy and incorporating the tenure of next agreement. (f) In case the licensee of the renewed catering unit wishes to participate in the tender process for allotment of fresh license during the period of renewal, he shall forgo the renewed unit on allotment of fresh contract.” 6. Likewise the very same agreement also has a clause of the Dispute Resolution under Article 16 which again stands reproduced hereunder: ARTICLE 16: DISPUTE RESOLUTION: 16.1 In the event of any dispute or difference arising between the parties hereto as to the construction or operation of this contract, or the respective rights and obligations of the parties on any matter in question, dispute or difference on any account, the same will be resolved by mutual discussions and deliberations. In case, still the disputes cannot be resolved then the aggrieved party can request for Arbitration as per the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 and the rules there of as amended from time to time, and as per the extant instructions issued by Railway Board. 16.2 The award passed by the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the Parties. 16.3 It is further clarified that during the resolution of the Disputes, the Licensee shall be obligated for the continued performance of its obligations under the Agreement until the resolution of the Disputes. 16.4 The venue and language of Arbitration will be Secunderabad and English, respectively. 16.5 The seat of Arbitration shall be at Secunderabad and within the jurisdiction of Secunderabad /Hyderabad Courts. 7. As would be evident from the preceding paragraphs, the agreement entered into between the parties, the license period was for 3 years i.e. from 30.07.2022 to 29.07.2025. The licensee was required to move an appropriate application for renewal six (6) months before the date of expiry of the lease. The petitioner in the instant case did apply for renewal in December, 2024 itself. However after due consideration, the application for renewal/rejection got rejected on 21.11.2025, which is thereafter the writ petition is filed. The rejection order dated 21.11.2025 clearly refers to paragraph 17.1 of Catering Policy which says that in the event of imposition of fine or penalty on more than five occasions, the application for renewal would be rejected. 8. In the case of deliberation, learned counsel for the petitioner admits that there had been five punishments which were imposed in the past starting from 22.02.2024, 25.10.2024, 01.07.2024, 03.05.2024 and 03.07.2024. There does not seem to be any challenge made to the said penalties and warnings imposed. There also does not seem to be any challenge made to the rejection of the renewal dated 21.11.2025 except for an interim prayer in the writ petition seeking for staying the rejection/renewal. What was substantively prayed for in the writ petition, was for the renewal of license. 9. Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing Railway Department on the other hand submitted that after the consideration, rejection of the renewal license, the said tea stall contract was subjected to e-auction and the e-auction has been finalized. Thereafter the e-auction stood awarded in favour of M/s.SK Enterprises, Lucknow. 9. Mr.N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India representing Railway Department on the other hand submitted that after the consideration, rejection of the renewal license, the said tea stall contract was subjected to e-auction and the e-auction has been finalized. Thereafter the e-auction stood awarded in favour of M/s.SK Enterprises, Lucknow. Upon a query being put to the learned counsel for the parties, it was informed that the petitioner for the reasons best known did not participate in the e-auction particularly when there was no embargo for him to participate in the same and where the petitioner could have given up competent bid in the e-auction seeking for re-allotment of the said tea stall at the Kachiguda Railway Station. 10. As regards the contention of the petitioner so far as Catering Policy, 2010 having been superseded, there is no material documents made available before this Bench to show that there is another Catering Policy which is in vogue after the suppression of the Catering Policy, 2010. Though there is a policy which has been issued in the year 2017 but the said policy also in very categorical terms have held that so far as the tenure is concerned those would be governed by the Catering Policy, 2010. Likewise, the reference to the correspondence of the Railway Department so far as rider agreement and the commercial circular dated 15.03.2007 is concerned, that would also per se clearly reflect that the instructions issued in the said circular is not withstanding any provision in the Catering Policy, 2010 which by itself would go to show that it was Catering Policy, 2010 which was in force so far as the rider agreement between the petitioner and the respondent is concerned. A fact which needs to be considered at this juncture is that the entire case of the petitioner flows from the contractual agreement that was entered into between the petitioner and the respondent. The said agreement has a specific clause of arbitration as well in resolving the disputes. The Catering Policy, 2010 as also Catering Policy, 2017 has this arbitration clause. The appellant also in the said case was bound by the said arbitration clause. The said agreement has a specific clause of arbitration as well in resolving the disputes. The Catering Policy, 2010 as also Catering Policy, 2017 has this arbitration clause. The appellant also in the said case was bound by the said arbitration clause. A fact which cannot be lost sight of is the agreement that was entered into on 18.11.2022 specifically was for 3 years i.e., from 30.07.2022 to 29.07.2025, there does not seem to be any action to have been taken by the respondents for termination of the said license before the completion of the tenure period of 3 years and even thereafter the petitioner requires to move an application for renewal which was in-turn required to be duly considered by the authorities concerned and the absence of moving such an application, the authorities are required to scrutinize the performance of the licensee. 11. From the reading of the order of rejection of renewal and from the facts which has been admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that there does not seem to be any dispute. The petitioner was subject to imposition of fine or penalty on five different occasions in the past. In view of the same if the authorities have taken a decision not to renew the license prima facie, we are of the considered opinion that the said stand cannot be found fault with. The view taken by the learned single judge also deserves to be affirmed. The petitioner for the reasons best known did not participate in the subsequent e-auction proceedings initiated and if the petitioner having participated and having given the highest bid in all possibility the petitioner would have also been considered for being allotted the same tea stall. Having not done so, the petitioner cannot now seek to stall the e-auction proceedings which have since been finalized and M/s.SK Enterprises having been found to be qualified in the said e- auction. 12. In view of the same we do not find any merits in the Writ Appeal and the same fails and accordingly stands rejected. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.