Disposed

M/S Griham Food and Hotel Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC16 Dec 2024W.P.(C)/17277/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A railway catering stall licensee, not a party to the earlier batch of writ petitions challenging Clause 11 of Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2017, sought an extension of its licenses to vacate stalls at Anand Vihar and New Delhi Railway Stations. Relying on Division Bench orders granting parity to similarly situated allottees, the Court granted three months' time from the expiry dates specified, s

What did the court decide?

Three months' time from specified expiry dates to vacate stalls, subject to payment of license fee and undertaking within four weeks.

M/S Griham Food and Hotel Private Limited Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~47

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 17277/2024, CM APPL. 73493/2024, CM APPL. 73494/2024 & CM APPL. 73495/2024 M/S GRIHAM FOOD AND HOTEL PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner

¶4

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ajay Jain, SPC with Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, Mr.M.N. Mishra and Mr. Harshit Batra, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRATEEK JALAN

¶8

O R D E R

¶9

% 16.12.2024

¶10

By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner seeks an extension of his licenses for operating multiple catering stalls at Anand Vihar Terminal Railway Station and New Delhi Railway Station. The details of the petitioner’s stalls are as follows:

¶11

S. No.	Location of the catering stalls	Last date of the Extension
1.	General Minor Catering Unit	24.02.2025
	ANVT 4 at PF No. 1 at Anand
	Vihar Terminal Railway Station.
2.	General Minor Unit (GMU) No.	04.03.2025
	GMU NDLS 18 at PF No.4/5 at
	New Delhi Railway Station.

¶12

Page 1 of 5

¶13

W.P.(C) 17277/2024

¶14

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/12/2024 at 11:46:51

¶15

3.	General Minor Unit (GMU) No.	04.03.2025
	GMU NDLS 20 at PF No. 4/5 of
	New Delhi Railway Station.
4.	General Minor Unit (GMU) No.	04.03.2025
	GMU NDLS 23 at PF No. 4/5 of
	New Delhi Railway Station.
5.	General Minor Unit (GMU) No.	04.03.2025
	GMU NDLS 26 at PF No. 12/13
	of New Delhi Railway Station.

¶16

The petitioner’s case is based upon orders passed in similar cases.

¶17

Several allottees who held licenses for Multi-Purpose Stall [“MPS”] and Catering Stalls in various railway stations filed writ petitions in this Court, challenging Clause 11 of Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2017 issued on 27.02.2017. They relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and Others vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association [(2016) 3SCC 580].

¶18

Before this Court, the writ petitions were divided into two batches, one dealing with MPS Stalls and other dealing with Catering Stalls. The MPS batch [W.P.(C) 2501/2023, etc.] was disposed on 29.05.2024, and the Catering batch [W.P.(C) 6771/2024, etc.] was disposed of on 30.05.2024. In both cases, the Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitions were devoid of merit but granted a period of three months (from the date of the extended license after taking into account the dies-non period, or from the date of judgment, whichever was later) to vacate the

¶19

Page 2 of 5

¶20

W.P.(C) 17277/2024

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/12/2024 at 11:46:51

¶23

units in question, subject to the payment of user license fee.

¶24

I am informed that appeals to the Division Bench against these judgments were dismissed, but the matters were carried to the Supreme Court by some of the allottees, including SLP(C) 19229/2024 which applied to MPS cases. The Supreme Court disposed of the SLP by an order dated 27.08.2024, which reads as follows:-

¶25

“ 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶26

2. We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. We however extend the time granted by the learned Single Judge of the High Court in its order dated 29.05.2024 by four months from today. All the allottees shall vacate and handover the vacant possession of the stalls in question before the expiry of four months subject to filing of the usual undertaking before the Registry of this Court within four weeks from today.

¶27

3. Accordingly, the Special Leave petition is disposed of.

¶28

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. ”

¶29

In the meanwhile, some of the allottees, who had not earlier challenged the circular, filed writ petitions before this Court. Two orders placed on record show that the petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge [order dated 16.07.2024 in W.P.(C) 9231/2024 and order dated 30.07.2024 in W.P.(C) 10459/2024]. The coordinate Bench found that those allottees who had not come to the Court, cannot be granted the benefit of the extension. The aforesaid orders were carried to the Division Bench by way of LPA No. 746/2024 and LPA 767/2024. In both cases, the Court applied the principle of parity with the allottees who had filed writ petitions, and directed that the later petitioners ought to be granted three months’ time from the date of expiry of their licenses to vacate the catering stalls in question. It was further directed that, if the catering stalls

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

W.P.(C) 17277/2024

¶32

This is a digitally signed order.

¶33

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/12/2024 at 11:46:51

¶34

were not removed with the extended period, the respondents would be at liberty to remove the goods forthwith, without filing any proceedings.

¶35

The petitioner in this petition was also not a party to the batch of petitions decided on 29.05.2024 and 30.05.2024, but seeks similar extension, relying upon the orders of the Division Bench granting parity. Although the prayer in this petition is for grant of an extension of three months, and an additional extension of four months, ostensibly in terms of the Supreme Court order dated 27.08.2024, the petition is pressed only to the extent of parity with the order of the Division Bench as the present petitioner was not party to the earlier batch of proceedings. Mr. Jitender Mehta, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that he will be satisfied with an order on the same lines as granted by the Division Bench in LPA 746/2024 and LPA 767/2024 i.e., that the petitioner be given three months’ time from the date of the expiry of the original or extended period of license as described in the table above.

¶36

Mr. Ajay Jain, learned Senior Panel Counsel for Union of India, does not dispute that the petitioner is similarly placed to the writ petitioner/appellant in the said two cases, but submits that, as before the Division Bench, the respondents dispute the applicability of the principle of parity.

¶37

As the Division Bench has already held that the principle is applicable to the similarly situated persons, I am of the view that the present petitioner is also entitled to the same relief.

¶38

The petition is disposed of with the direction that, subject to payment of license fee, the petitioner is granted time of three months from the dates as specified in the table above, to vacate the stall in

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

W.P.(C) 17277/2024

¶41

¶42

question. All pending applications are disposed of. 11. The writ petitioner will file an undertaking that it will vacate the stalls in question upon expiry of the period granted by this Court. The undertaking be filed within a period of four weeks from today. If the petitioner fails to comply, the respondents will be free to remove its goods from the site.

¶43

PRATEEK JALAN, J

¶44

DECEMBER 16, 2024 SS/AD/

¶45

Page 5 of 5

¶46

W.P.(C) 17277/2024

¶47

This is a digitally signed order.

¶48

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 18/12/2024 at 11:46:51

M/S Griham Food and Hotel Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Griham Food and Hotel Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajiv Enterprises (through Its Sole Proprietor Rajiv Daga) Vs Commissioner of Delhi Goods and Services Tax

State of Haryana Vs B M Institute of Engineering & Technology & Anr.

Anil Bhasin Vs Gaurav Gogna and Others

Gourav Vs Union of India & Ors.

Delhi Brush Manufacturing Association Vs State of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jagdish Kumar Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Smt. Neelam Sathi Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Shri Upkar Singh Vs Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors.

Jeet Singh Vs Delhi Development Authority

M/S S K International & Ors. Vs Bhupender Singh

N K Goel Vs Sushil Goel

Manju Tiwari Vs Delhi Jal Board (Djb) & Ors.

Dilip Katyal Vs Bses Yamuna Power Ltd. & Ors.

Anand Tandon Vs Dr J K Tandon & Ors.