Dismissed

Jagarnath Tiwari v. South East Central Railway

Chhattisgarh HC16 Sept 2026WPC/4520/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an allottee of shops at Raigarh Railway Station, sought platform vending permission due to low passenger footfall at the shops. The Railway authorities rejected the application, stating no provision exists for platform vending in the Multifunctional Complex. The High Court held that in the absence of an enabling provision, no writ can issue to direct such permission, and dismissed the petition.

What the court decided

AI extract

Jagarnath Tiwari Vs South East Central… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

RAVVAUTTEJKUMARRAJU Digitally signedby RAVVA UTTEJKUMAR RAJUDate: 2026.09.1819:12:51 +0530

CGHC010281452021

2026:CGHC:40590

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

WPC No. 4520 of 2021

¶8

1 - Jagarnath Tiwari S/o Rampratap Tiwari Aged About 46 Years Resident Of Radhika Residency Kabir Chowk, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

Versus

¶11

1 - South East Central Railway Through The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager. South East Central Railway , Bilaspur Zone Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

2 - The Principal Chief Commercial Manager South East Central Railway, New Zonal Building 1st Floor D , Block Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - The Deputy Chief Commercial Manager (Ps) South East Central Railway, New Zonal Building 1st Floor D , Block Bilaspur , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

(Cause title is downloaded from CIS Periphery.) For Petitioner : Mr. Shikhar Sharma, Advocate. For Respondents/UOI : Mr. Rishabh Dev Singh, on behalf of Mr. Ramakant Mishra, D.S.G.I.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

17/09/2026

The petitioner has preferred the instant petition seeking the following reliefs:-

¶21

“10.1 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the records pertaining to the case from the respondent authorities.

¶22

10.2 That, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby quashing the impugned orders dated 22.07.2021 and 07.11.2019 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to grant platform vending permission in favour of petitioner as granted in favour of other contractors, in accordance with law.

¶23

10.3 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned orders are non-speaking, arbitrary and have been passed without assigning any cogent reasons. It is submitted that after allotment of shops at Raigarh Railway Station, the petitioner commenced food business, but due to the short stoppage of trains, passengers are unable to reach the shops, resulting in wastage of food. Therefore, the petitioner sought permission for platform vending, particularly when the Railway Board’s guidelines permit such vending at an ‘A’ Grade Station, but the said request was rejected without proper application of mind.

¶25

¶26

Learned counsel for the respondents/ U.O.I. submits that there is no provision permitting platform vending in the Multifunctional Complex (M.F.C.) and, accordingly, the petitioner’s applications were rejected by the Railway authorities. He further submits that the petitioner has already challenged the cancellation of his shops before the Arbitrator, where the matter is pending, and that any allotment may be considered by the Railways subject to the outcome of the arbitration proceedings.

¶27

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered the submissions made as well as the order dated 27.07.2021, this Court finds that the Railway authorities have specifically stated that there is no provision permitting platform vending in the Multifunctional Complex. In the absence of any enabling provision permitting such vending, no writ can be issued directing the Railway authorities to permit the petitioner to undertake platform vending in the M.F.C. Accordingly, the relief sought by the petitioner cannot be granted.

¶28

Accordingly, this petition being bereft of merit is hereby dismissed.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶31

Judge

¶32

U.K. Raju

Jagarnath Tiwari v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Jagarnath Tiwari v. South East Central Railway

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases