ORDER : The petitionerseeks quashing of the impugned proceedings dated 26.09.2025 by which the 4th Respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, terminated his tea stall contract at Platform Nos. 4/5 (Middle), Kachiguda Railway Station, and to direct renewal or extension of his licence in accordance with Clause 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016 and the Catering Policy-2010. 1.1 The facts of the case are that the 4th Respondent-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, issued a tender notification dated 30.11.2015 inviting bids for various stalls, including Tea Stall No. 017/KCG/4-5/TS at Kachiguda Railway Station. The petitioner applied for multiple stalls and emerged as the successful bidder for the Kachiguda stall. By letter dated 11.07.2016, the 4th Respondent awarded him the contract, and pursuant to the agreement, he commenced operations with effect from 01.09.2016. Under the Railway Board’s Catering Policy-2010, as incorporated in Article 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016, the initial licence tenure was five years, with a provision for renewal for further periods of three years each upon satisfactory performance. Accordingly, the petitioner’s initial five-year term was to expire on 31.08.2021, and he asserts that he operated continuously from 01.09.2016, cleared all dues, and ran the stall to the satisfaction of both authorities and the public. 1.2 Before completion of the initial term, the petitioner applied on 23.08.2021 for renewal of the licence for a further three years under Article 3.2. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, a dies-non extension was granted up to 16.04.2022. The petitioner maintains that, in normal course, the renewal ought to have carried the licence up to 16.04.2025. Instead, the 4th Respondent granted a series of short-term extensions: from 01.11.2022 to 31.01.2023 by orders dated 19.10.2022; from 01.02.2023 to 30.04.2023 by orders dated 25.01.2023; from 01.05.2023 to 31.07.2023 by orders dated 20.05.2023; from 01.11.2023 to 31.01.2024 by orders dated 01.11.2023; from 01.02.2024 to 30.04.2024 by orders dated 01.02.2024; from 01.05.2024 to 31.07.2024 by orders dated 22.04.2024; and finally from 01.11.2024 to 31.07.2025 by orders dated 26.12.2024. 1.3 In the midst of this, the 4th Respondent issued a letter dated 10.03.2022 stating that the renewal process would be initiated subject to submission of documents and an affidavit in the prescribed format under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 on Rs.100/- stamp paper. 1.3 In the midst of this, the 4th Respondent issued a letter dated 10.03.2022 stating that the renewal process would be initiated subject to submission of documents and an affidavit in the prescribed format under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 on Rs.100/- stamp paper. The petitioner states that the respondent demanded an affidavit that he would forego all other stalls and retain only one, citing the Railway Board’s Circular No. 22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017, which limited one person to one stall. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed W.P. No. 18604 of 2022, wherein interim directions were granted on 13.04.2022 directing the respondents to continue his stall at Platform Nos. 4/5, Kachiguda. He asserts that pursuant to these interim directions and Railway policy, his licence was extended from time to time, culminating in the extension up to 31.07.2025 by orders dated 26.12.2024. 1.4 As the extended period approached expiry, the petitioner submitted an application dated 31.07.2025 to the 4th Respondent seeking further extension in accordance with headquarters guidelines. He alleges that there was no response, and that on 01.08.2025 his tea stall was abruptly closed without notice and without consideration of his application. He then addressed a detailed representation dated 22.09.2025, invoking directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Railway Board guidelines, and South Central Railway clarifications, asserting that existing licensees of minor static catering units were entitled to continue operations under status-quo orders until a further policy decision, and requesting reopening of the stall and also sought an explanation for closure of tea stall. According to the petitioner, this representation also elicited no response. 1.5 Meanwhile, W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 was listed on 25.08.2025 and dismissed on the basis of what the petitioner characterizes as an erroneous submission by the Standing Counsel for the Central Government that his licence had expired on 16.04.2025 and that no cause survived. The petitioner contends that this was factually incorrect because his licence had been extended up to 31.07.2025 and his application dated 31.07.2025 for extension was pending. He further explains that his earlier counsel could not effectively represent him due to shifting practice after bifurcation, and he has since initiated a review application which is pending. 1.6 Shortly thereafter, the 4th Respondent issued the impugned Proceedings dated 26.09.2025 terminating his contract on the ground that the writ petition No.18604 of 2022 had been closed as infructuous. He further explains that his earlier counsel could not effectively represent him due to shifting practice after bifurcation, and he has since initiated a review application which is pending. 1.6 Shortly thereafter, the 4th Respondent issued the impugned Proceedings dated 26.09.2025 terminating his contract on the ground that the writ petition No.18604 of 2022 had been closed as infructuous. The petitioner alleges that this termination was passed without notice or opportunity of hearing, solely relying on the dismissal of the writ petition No.18604 of 2022, and without considering his pending application dated 31.07.2025 or his representation dated 22.09.2025. He contends that the dismissal of the writ petition No.18604 of 2022 cannot have bearing on termination because his contract had repeatedly been extended in line with Ministry of Railways instructions dated 13.05.2019, 21.05.2019, 27.08.2019, 13.12.2021, 12.05.2022, 13.07.2023, and 18.04.2024, all of which directed maintenance of “status quo” for minor catering units based on judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court. 1.7 The petitionerasserts that his licence was valid until 31.07.2025; that he submitted an application for renewal on the very last day i.e., on 31.07.2025; and that termination of his licencewithout considering his application violates Clause 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement. The petitioner alleges that he has been discriminated, pointing out that partnership firms were granted three-year renewals while individuals like him were given only six-month status-quo extensions, and that similarly placed licensees received more favorable treatment. He specifically cites that P. Srinivas Rao at Bheemavaram Town received renewal up to 03.11.2025 by orders dated 30.04.2025, and that G. Vijayvardhan at Tenali and Annavaram was granted a three-year extension from 21.07.2025 to 20.07.2028 by orders dated 07.07.2025 of the DCM, South Central Railway, Vijayawada, while others in the Secunderabad division were extended up to 2027. He contends that despite headquarters advising issuance of status-quo orders for individual contracts, this division denied him the same benefit. 1.8 The petitioner also relies on the history of litigation challenging Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 before the Delhi High Court, interim status-quo orders therein, subsequent directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and Railway Board communications, including emails and letters dated 21.05.2019, directing maintenance of status quo as on 31.03.2019 and even reopening of closed stalls. He alleges that the 4th Respondent misinterpreted these judgments and policies and acted contrary to them. He alleges that the 4th Respondent misinterpreted these judgments and policies and acted contrary to them. On these grounds, and noting that he was not even served a signed copy of the impugned order dated 26.09.2025, the petitioner seeks a writ of certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the impugned Termination Proceedings dated 26.09.2025, and to set aside the same, and to issue a consequential direction to renew or extend his licence on the same footing as other similarly placed license holders. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the 4 th respondent, on behalf of all the respondents. While admitting that the General Minor Unit (Tea Stall) bearing No. 017/KCG/4-5/TS at Kacheguda Railway Station on Platforms 4 and 5 was awarded to the petitioner, G. Vijay Vardhan, for a period of five years from 01.09.2016 to 31.08.2021, under an agreement dated 03.10.2016, it is contended that due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the contract was extended by 228 days, resulting in the effective completion of the original contractual tenure on 16.04.2022. It is contended that under Clause 20.2 of the Master Licence Agreement, the parties are independent contractors and no vested or partnership-like rights accrue to the licensee. 2.1 Referring to Article 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement, which governs tenure and renewal, it is contended that licence has an initial term of five years with a provision for renewal for periods of three years, however, renewal is explicitly “not a matter of right.” The clause requires the licensee to apply for renewal at least six months in advance of expiry, and submit a no-dues certificate, and also furnish documents afresh as per Chapter 1 of Section B of the Bid Document, and withdraw any court cases. According to the respondents, since the contract stood extended up to 16.04.2022, the petitioner ought to have applied for renewal by 16.10.2021 with all requisite documents, however, the petitioner did not do so. Consequently, the Railways addressed a letter dated 10.03.2022 to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit the prescribed documents, including an affidavit under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017. This letter, marked as Annexure R-II, was intended to afford the petitioner an opportunity to comply with policy before the contract expired. Consequently, the Railways addressed a letter dated 10.03.2022 to the petitioner, calling upon him to submit the prescribed documents, including an affidavit under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017. This letter, marked as Annexure R-II, was intended to afford the petitioner an opportunity to comply with policy before the contract expired. 2.2 In response to the letter dated 10.03.2022 addressed by the Railways, the petitioner sent a letter dated 11.03.2022, which the respondents reproduce and rely upon heavily. They point out that instead of submitting the required documents or affidavit, the petitioner raised objections and hypothetical concerns, stating that if he submitted the affidavit he would have to forgo his entire railway business in future, and the petitioner questioned how the clause was being implemented against him, and asserted that he had participated in an open tender on the understanding of a “5+3 years” tenure. The respondents argue that this reply neither expressed a clear willingness to renew on policy terms nor complied with the contractual prerequisites, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner was unwilling to accept renewal conditions. Nevertheless, the Railways issued a further letter dated 16.03.2022, granting him a final opportunity to submit the documents within 10 days, and the petitioner was warned that if he fails to submit the documents, the contract would stand terminated on 16.04.2022 without further notice. 2.3 It is contended that the petitioner, instead of submitting the documents, filed W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 on 11.04.2022, even before the expiry of the 10-day period mentioned in the letter dated 16.03.2022. The respondents contend that this conduct shows that the petitioner attempted to put pressure on the administration to secure extension without following the agreed procedure. They further allege that the petitioner was already operating multiple stalls in other divisions and had doubts about his eligibility under the “one person–one unit” rule, which is why he avoided submitting the affidavit. According to the respondents, this conduct amounts to lack of clean hands and bias, as the petitioner sought to continue multiple stalls in violation of fair competition norms. 2.4 The respondents placed strong reliance on Commercial Circular No.22 of 2017, issued pursuant to Railway Policy and Supreme Court judgments, which overrides earlier catering policies. According to the respondents, this conduct amounts to lack of clean hands and bias, as the petitioner sought to continue multiple stalls in violation of fair competition norms. 2.4 The respondents placed strong reliance on Commercial Circular No.22 of 2017, issued pursuant to Railway Policy and Supreme Court judgments, which overrides earlier catering policies. It is contended that the Circular mandates that only those minor catering static unit licensees who declare on affidavit that they do not hold more than one unit—such as one refreshment room, one catering stall, or one trolley— anywhere on Indian Railways, whether in their own name or benami, are eligible for renewal. If a licensee holds more than one unit, he must forgo all others except the one sought to be renewed. False declarations are treated as material breach, leading to termination and debarment. The respondents assert that the petitioner admittedly held at least two other stalls, one at Annavaram and one at Tenali, which the petitioner himself disclosed in the writ proceedings. This, they argue, conclusively establishes his ineligibility for renewal unless he furnished the prescribed affidavit agreeing to forgo the other units, which he refused to do. They further allege suppression of this material fact before the Court. 2.5 In rebuttal to the petitioner’s reliance on Article 3.2 and the petitioner’s claims of an assured “5+3” or eight-year tenure, the respondents argue that the petitioner selectively quoted the agreement while suppressing crucial portions. They explain that Clause 3.1 states that renewal is on mutually agreed terms, and Article 20.1 lays down an order of precedence in interpretation, placing Railway’s latest policies above the agreement itself. Thus, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 and subsequent Railway Board letters prevail. They also rely on the petitioner’s own letter dated 11.03.2022, where he asserted that he had bid high believing the contract to be for eight years, to show that he misunderstood and misinterpreted the contract conditions. 2.6 With regard to the petitioner’s allegation of discrimination, the respondents state that all similarly placed licensees under Catering Policy-2010 in the division were granted extensions only after submitting the mandatory affidavit and documents under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017. They refer to tabular statements (Annexure R-VI and other annexures) listing such vendors to demonstrate uniform application of policy. 2.6 With regard to the petitioner’s allegation of discrimination, the respondents state that all similarly placed licensees under Catering Policy-2010 in the division were granted extensions only after submitting the mandatory affidavit and documents under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017. They refer to tabular statements (Annexure R-VI and other annexures) listing such vendors to demonstrate uniform application of policy. According to them, the petitioner is not similarly situated because he holds multiple stalls and has persistently refused to comply with the affidavit requirement. They also clarify that the extensions granted to the petitioner beyond the original term, including the three-year period from 01.08.2022 to 31.07.2025, were given only out of deference to interim orders of the High Court in W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 and not because he satisfied renewal conditions. 2.7 With respect to the closure of the earlier writ petition, the respondents state that W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 was dismissed as infructuous by order dated 25.08.2025, after the petitioner’s extended period had effectively run its course. Following the dismissal of the writ petition No.18604 of 2022, the railway administration sought legal opinion on whether the stall should be renewed or terminated. Upon noting that the petitioner had still not submitted the mandatory affidavit or documents and considering the legal advice, the administration decided to terminate the contract, which was communicated by letter dated 26.09.2025. It is therefore contended that this was a reasoned administrative decision grounded in contract, policy, and law, and not an arbitrary action. 2.8 The respondents rebut the petitioner’s reliance on various Railway Board circulars and status-quo directions by citing Railway Board letter No. 2016/TG-III/600/01 dated 13.12.2021, which clarified that even licenses granted prior to Catering Policy-2017 are governed by Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 and the Board’s letter dated 27.08.2019. According to the respondents, this clarification squarely applies to the petitioner and negates his claim that the circular is inapplicable to him.Further, the respondents contend that the petitioner suppressed material facts, attempting to monopolize catering units by continuing multiple stalls indefinitely. They allege that the petitioner is operating stalls at Tenali and Annavaram and has even obtained interim orders in W.P. No. 13582 of 2022 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to continue operations at Tenali without submitting the mandated affidavit. They allege that the petitioner is operating stalls at Tenali and Annavaram and has even obtained interim orders in W.P. No. 13582 of 2022 before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh to continue operations at Tenali without submitting the mandated affidavit. They contend that such conduct defeats the social objectives of Railway catering policies, which are designed to prevent monopolies and ensure wider livelihood opportunities. 2.9 It is finally contended that since the petitioner’s contract stood lawfully terminated, the Railway administration has issued a fresh tender notification for the subject stall on 17.11.2025, with bids scheduled to be opened on 05.12.2025, emphasizing that public interest and fair competition require that the stall be reallotted through due process. On these grounds, the respondents contend that the writ petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 3. Heard Mr. P. Amarender, learned counsel for the petitioner; and Ms. N.V.R. Rajyalakshmi, learned counsel appearing for Mr. N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General for the respondents. Perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was lawfully granted a tea stall licence under the Catering Policy, 2010 for an initial period of five years commencing from 01.09.2016, with a contractual assurance of renewal for a further period of three years on satisfactory performance, as embodied in Clause 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016. It is urged that the petitioner duly performed all contractual obligations, cleared all dues, and was continuously permitted to operate the stall, including through successive extensions granted by the respondents up to 31.07.2025, thereby creating a legitimate expectation of renewal. Learned counsel submits that the abrupt closure of the stall on 01.08.2025 and the subsequent termination order dated 26.09.2025 were passed without notice, without considering the petitioner’s application dated 31.07.2025 and representation dated 22.09.2025, and in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further argued that the insistence on an affidavit under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 is arbitrary and inapplicable to the petitioner, who secured the contract through an open tender, and that similarly placed vendors were granted renewals or long-term extensions, rendering the impugned action discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the licence granted to the petitioner expired by efflux of time and that renewal under Clause 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement is not a matter of right but is conditional upon strict compliance with contractual stipulations and prevailing Railway policies. It is contended that the petitioner failed to apply for renewal six months in advance, failed to submit mandatory documents, and deliberately refused to furnish the affidavit required under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, despite repeated notices dated 10.03.2022 and 16.03.2022. Learned counsel emphasizes that the petitioner was holding multiple catering units at Annavaram and Tenali, making him ineligible for renewal unless he agreed to forgo the other units, and that all similarly situated licensees who complied with the policy were granted renewal. It is further submitted that the extensions granted to the petitioner up to 31.07.2025 were only in deference to interim orders of this Court and not in recognition of any vested right. Learned counsel therefore contends that there is no illegality in the impugned termination order dated 26.09.2025, and therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Having considered the respective contentions and perused the record, it may be noted that the dispute arises out of the termination of a catering licence granted to the petitioner for a General Minor Unit (Tea Stall) at Kachiguda Railway Station. On facts, there is no serious controversy that the petitioner was granted a licence for a fixed period of five years from 01.09.2016 to 31.08.2021 under the Master Licence Agreement dated 03.10.2016, and that owing to the Covid-19 pandemic, a dies-non extension of 228 days was granted, resulting in completion of the original contractual tenure on 16.04.2022. 6.1 It is to be noted that the petitioner’s assertion that he had an automatic and vested right to renewal for a further three years and that the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily in not granting such renewal, is misplaced assertion, as it is not in accordance with the terms of Article 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement itself. 6.1 It is to be noted that the petitioner’s assertion that he had an automatic and vested right to renewal for a further three years and that the respondent authorities acted arbitrarily in not granting such renewal, is misplaced assertion, as it is not in accordance with the terms of Article 3.2 of the Master Licence Agreement itself. While the petitioner emphasizes the availability of renewal, he conspicuously omits the equally explicit stipulations that renewal is “not a matter of right,” that an application must be made at least six months prior to expiry, and that renewal is conditional upon submission of prescribed documents, including an affidavit, no-dues certificate, and compliance with prevailing Railway policies. 6.2 The record further reveals that the petitioner did not apply for renewal six months prior to 16.04.2022, that is, by 16.10.2021, as contractually mandated. This factual lapse has not been disputed by the petitioner with any documentary proof. Instead, when the respondent authorities, by letter dated 10.03.2022, specifically called upon him to submit the requisite documents and affidavit in terms of Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, the petitioner responded on 11.03.2022 not by complying with the demand, but by questioning the applicability of the policy, asserting an assumed “5+3 years” entitlement, and expressly declining to submit the affidavit on the ground that it would require him to forgo other stalls. This correspondence, relied upon by the respondents and not denied by the petitioner, clearly demonstrates that the petitioner was unwilling to comply with the governing policy conditions for renewal. The respondents issued a further letter dated 16.03.2022 granting an additional 10 days’ time and clearly warning that failure to comply would result in termination on 16.04.2022. The petitioner has not rebutted the issuance or contents of this notice; instead, he filed W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 even before the expiry of the said period. 6.3 It is to be noted that Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 assumes critical significance, and the said circular, issued pursuant to Railway policy and in the backdrop of judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, expressly overrides earlier catering policies and mandates that renewal of minor catering units is permissible only upon an affidavit declaring that the licensee holds not more than one unit, and that if multiple units are held, all others must be forgone except the one sought to be renewed. The petitioner has neither disputed the existence nor the contents of this circular; his case rests solely on the contention that it should not apply to him. This contention is directly contradicted by Article 20.1 of the Master Licence Agreement, which accords primacy , in the order of precedence, to“Railway’s latest policies as applicable from time to time.” The respondents have also placed reliance on Railway Board clarification dated 13.12.2021, which reiterates that even licences granted prior to the Catering Policy-2017 are governed by Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017. The petitioner has failed to place any cogent material to counter this clarification.Therefore, the petitioner’s contention of an automatic or indefeasible right to renewal is legally untenable. The law is well settled that where a contract or policy confers a discretion coupled with conditions, and expressly negates a right of renewal, no mandamus can be issued to compel renewal contrary to such terms. Further, the parties cannot claim equities merely based on interim orders of “status quo”, and their case has to rest on the foundation of compliance with mandatory conditions. In the instant case, there is no plausible reason forthcoming from the petitioner as to what prevented him from furnishing the mandatory affidavit as per the Master Circular Guidelines, and Railway polices, stating that in case he is operating more than one Tea Stall/General Minor Unit, anywhere under the Indian Railways, he would disclose the same and would forgo all the other Tea Stalls/General Minor Units, except the one he is intending to seek renewal. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondent-Railways has been renewing, even without furnishing affidavit, and even if the persons are operating multiple Stalls, and specifically denying only to the petitioner. 6.4 From a perusal of the record, and the respective submissions, it is evident that the respondent authorities acted as per the Circular instructions and policies governing the Contract, and after affording repeated opportunities to the petitioner. The impugned order dated 26.09.2025 was passed by the competent authority, namely the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, after the expiry of the extended period up to 31.07.2025, after dismissal of W.P. No. 18604 of 2022 as infructuous on 25.08.2025, and after obtaining legal opinion. It is not the case of the petitioner that he complied with all mandatory requirement of submission of documents including the mandatory affidavit. It is not the case of the petitioner that he complied with all mandatory requirement of submission of documents including the mandatory affidavit. Admittedly, the petitioner for the reasons best known to him evaded from furnishing the mandatory affidavit, and sought to project an argument that he tendered more amount for the contract hoping that it would be “5 + 3” term. Merely because the petitioner has assumed that his contract would be for “5 + 3”, his contract cannot be governed on assumptions, and cannot be continued despite non- compliance with mandatory requirement of furnishing documents and affidavit that he would forgo all other Stalls if he is operating more than one Stall. Law cannot take a detour for the benefit of petitioner. The impugned decision to terminate the petitioner’s contract was based on the petitioner’s admitted failure to submit mandatory documents and affidavit and his continued insistence on retaining multiple stalls, which is expressly prohibited. The plea of violation of principles of natural justice is unsustainable in view of the notices dated 10.03.2022 and 16.03.2022, the petitioner’s own written response dated 11.03.2022, and the prolonged extensions granted during pendency of earlier litigation. The action cannot be characterised as arbitrary or malafide, as it is supported by cogent documentary evidence and a consistent policy rationale aimed at preventing monopoly and ensuring fair competition. 6.5 The petitioner has failed to demonstrate any procedural irregularity, substantive illegality, or jurisdictional infirmity in the impugned proceedings. On the contrary, the material on record establishes that the petitioner sought to continue under the guise of judicial protection without complying with the contractual and policy framework governing renewal. Therefore, no case is therefore made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The impugned termination Proceedings dated 26.09.2025 are sustainable both in fact and in law, and the writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.