Disposed

Shri Om Prakash Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC3 Apr 2025W.P.(C)/4218/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A catering stall licensee at Dadar Railway Station sought extension of his licence period in parity with relief granted to similarly placed licensees. The court extended the licence for 7 months from 30 June 2025 on payment of licence fees, subject to an undertaking to vacate thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Licence to operate one Multi-Purpose Stall and two trolleys at Platform Nos. 13 and 14, Dadar Station, extended for 7 months from 30 June 2025, subject to licence fees and vacation undertaking.

Shri Om Prakash Jain Vs Union of India & Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~31

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 4218/2025 & CM APPLs. 19499/2025, 19500/2025 & 19501/2025

¶4

SHRI OM PRAKASH JAIN .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta with Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal and Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Advocates. (M): 9625461696 Email: [email protected]

¶6

versus

¶7

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Neeraj Dubey, SPC with Mr. Devvrat Yadav, GP for UOI. (M): 8285815626 9811411696 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MINI PUSHKARNA

¶9

¶10

O R D E R 03.04.2025

¶11

The present writ petition has been filed challenging the letter dated 30^th September, 2024, issued by respondent no. 2/Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Mumbai Division, Central Railway, Mumbai and seeking directions to the respondents to extend the benefit of extension of license period to the petitioner in proportionate to the reduced license fee during the Covid-19 pandemic, and as per the benefit given to other

¶12

Page 1 of 4

¶13

W.P.(C) 4218/2025

¶14

This is a digitally signed order.

¶15

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 08/04/2025 at 12:07:42

¶16

similarly placed persons.

¶17

The petitioner is a catering stall licensee and running/operating one Multi-Purpose Stall and Two Trolleys at Platform No. 13 and 14 of Dadar Railway Station .

¶18

It is submitted that the respondent no. 2 had issued a Letter of Award dated 4^th October, 2019 in favour of the petitioner, regarding conversion of petitioner’s curio stall and trolleys, into Multi-Purpose Stall.

¶19

The respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 30^th September, 2024, regarding extension of period of petitioner’s Multi-Purpose Stall and Trolleys at Platform Nos. 13 and 14 of Dadar Railway Station. The tenure of petitioner’s Multi-Purpose Stall and Trolleys, was originally ending on 4^th October, 2024. However, by way of the said impugned letter dated 30^th September, 2024, the license of the petitioner’s Multi-Purpose Stall and Trolleys is stipulated to expire on, 30^th June, 2025.

¶20

Thus, it is submitted that the catering stall granted in favour of the petitioner was extended from 5^th October, 2024 to 30^th June, 2025. 6. It is submitted that this Court, on previous occasions, has granted relief in similar matters. Attention of this Court has been drawn to the order dated 07^th March, 2025, passed by the Predecessor Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) 2953/2025 , titled as Sadeek Ali Versus Union of India and Ors., wherein, further extension of 7 months has been granted to the petitioner therein. Attention of this Court has also been drawn to other similar orders passed in other petitions.

¶21

Thus, it is submitted that the license period of the petitioner in the present case also, ought to be extended for another period of 7 months and that the petitioner is ready to give an undertaking on affidavit before this

¶22

Page 2 of 4

¶23

W.P.(C) 4218/2025

¶24

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 08/04/2025 at 12:07:42

¶25

Court, that the petitioner will vacate the stall in question, on expiry of the extended period of 7 months.

¶26

He further submits that he gives up other prayers challenging the policy of the Railways regarding Multi-Purpose Store. 9. Issue notice.

¶27

Notice is accepted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents, who submits that though the respondents have no objection to allowing of the present petition, in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, however, the Railways may not be restrained from inviting fresh tenders for awarding the licence, on expiry of the extended period of licence, of the petitioner.

¶28

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, at this stage, states that the petitioner is only pressing for the grant of extension of the license period for the period of 7 months, in terms of the orders passed previously, and gives up other challenges with regard to the policy of the Indian Railways.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents draw the attention of this Court to the order passed by the learned Division Bench in a similar matter, wherein, four months extension had been granted, by relying upon order of the Supreme Court, in a similar matter.

¶30

However, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the extension of four months was granted in addition to the 3 months’ extended period, as granted by the learned Single Judge. Thus, he submits that in total, 7 months’ extension was granted on previous occasions also.

¶31

The aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the parties, are noted.

¶32

Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties, this Court notes that, vide order dated 20^th March, 2025, in W.P.(C) 3474/2025, Shri

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

W.P.(C) 4218/2025

¶35

This is a digitally signed order.

¶36

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 08/04/2025 at 12:07:42

¶37

Kishori Lal Versus Union of India and Others , this Court has, in similar circumstances, granted extension in favour of the petitioner therein.

¶38

Thus, considering the fact that similar orders have been passed on previous occasions also by this Court, thereby, granting an extension of time for running the stall, this Court is of the view that in parity with the orders passed earlier by this Court, a similar order ought to be passed in the present case also. This Court sees no reason to take a different view from the orders passed earlier.

¶39

Accordingly, it is directed that, subject to payment of license fees, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the One Multi-Purpose Stall and Two Trolleys at Platform No. 13 and 14 of Dadar Railway Station for a period of 7 months from 30^th June, 2025, at stipulated license fees.

¶40

The petitioner is directed to file an undertaking, on an affidavit, before this Court, within a period of four weeks from today, that the petitioner shall vacate the stall in question, on expiry of the extended period of 7 months, failing which, the respondents will be at liberty to remove the goods of the petitioner, from the stall in question.

¶41

It is further made clear that extension of the licence fees of the petitioner will not preclude the Railways from inviting fresh tenders, for awarding of the license, on expiry of the extended period of license of the petitioner.

¶42

Accordingly, with the aforesaid directions, the present writ petition, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.

¶43

MINI PUSHKARNA, J

¶44

APRIL 3, 2025/ c

¶45

Page 4 of 4

¶46

W.P.(C) 4218/2025

¶47

Shri Om Prakash Jain v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Om Prakash Jain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Chouhan Caters Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avaada Energy Private Limited Vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, & Anr.

Save India Foundation Vs Lg of Delhi & Ors.

Harjeet Kaur & Anr. Vs Allahabad Bank @Indian Bank & Ors.

D. K. Gupta (Huf) Vs National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), New Delhi & Ors.

M/S Maruti Trading Co. Vs Sales Tax Officer, Class Ii, Avato & Anr.

M/S. Aom Advertising Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Delhi Transport Infrastructure Development Corporation Limited (Dtidcl) & Anr.

Ayush Garg Vs Reserve Bank of India and Others

M/S Chouhan Caters Vs Union of India & Ors.

Avaada Energy Private Limited Vs Central Transmission Utility of India Limited, & Anr.

Rajendra Singh Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation

Sagar Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ms Sana Ali Khan through Its Power of Attorney Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi through Its Commissioner & Ors.

Ranjna Mallik and Anr. Vs Dy Commissioner MCD and Ors.