Disposed

Najnin Khatun v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC4 Mar 2025LPA/166/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of writ petition challenging the five-year licence cap for 'minor units' under the Railway Catering Policy, 2017. The appellant's stall licence had expired. Relying on parity with other allottees who received extended time from the Supreme Court, the Division Bench granted four months to vacate, subject to an undertaking not to seek more time.

What did the court decide?

Four months' extension till 12.07.2025 to hand over the allotted catering stall, subject to filing an undertaking within one week; pending applications disposed.

Najnin Khatun Vs Union of India & Ors. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Delhi HC (2025)

¶1

$~57

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- LPA 166/2025, CM APPL. 12769/2025, CM APPL. 12770/2025 & CM APPL. 12771/2025

¶4

NAJNIN KHATUN .....Appellant Through: Mr. Tamim Qadri, Advocate.

¶5

versus

¶6

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Ms. Shivi Tiwari and Ms. Nisha Puri, Advocates.

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

¶9

O R D E R % 04.03.2025

¶10

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 04.12.2024 (hereafter the impugned order ) passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 16732/2024 captioned Najnin Khatun vs. Union of India & Ors.

¶11

The appellant had filed the said petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, impugning Clause 11 of the Commercial Circular No.20 of 2017 dated 27.02.2017 in respect of the Catering Policy, 2017. In terms of the said catering policy, the licence term of ‘minor units’ allocated to the various licensees was confined to a period of five years.

¶12

The appellant was allotted a catering stall- General minor Unit No. 03 at PF No.1 infront of Booking office of Saharsa Railway Station. The term for which the licence was granted to the appellant, including dies non p eriod on account of COVID, expired on 12.12.2024.

¶13

LPA 166/2025

¶14

Page 1 of 3

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 01/07/2025 at 15:30:11

¶17

The Commercial Circular dated 27.02.2017 was the subject matter of challenge in a batch of petitions as well, which was rejected by the learned Single Judge. The said decision was also upheld by the Division Bench of this Court. The said matters then travelled to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court also declined to interfere with the judgments passed by this Court. Although, in some cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also granted further four months’ time to the allottees to hand over their respective units.

¶18

Admittedly, the appellant is required to vacate the stalls licenced to it on expiry of the licence term. However, the learned Single Judge as well as this Court had, in matters granted the allottees further time of three months to vacate the same. And as stated above, the Hon’ble Supreme Court had allowed further period of four months over and above the time granted by this Court.

¶19

The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that on the principle of parity, the appellant may also be granted additional four months’ time to vacate the unit. It is seen that the learned Single Judge had in terms of the impugned order granted three months’ time from the expiry of licence period to the appellant to vacate the unit. However, the appellant submits that a further period of four months may be granted from the expiry of said period of three months, in parity with the other petitioners.

¶20

The learned counsel for the appellant further assures this Court that no further time would be sought and submits that an undertaking to the said effect as well as to the effect that it would vacate and handover the unit to the concerned authorities on or before the expiry of the additional period of four months as sought, would be furnished.

¶21

In view of the above, the present appeal is disposed of by granting the appellant further four months extension from 12.03.2025 i.e., the date of

¶22

LPA 166/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶23

This is a digitally signed order.

¶24

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 01/07/2025 at 15:30:11

¶25

expiry of period granted by the learned Single Judge, till 12.07.2025 to handover the allocated stall to the concerned authorities.

¶26

We, however, clarify that this order would be operative on the appellant furnishing an undertaking to this Court to the effect as noted above within a period of one week from today with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶27

It is clarified that if the undertaking is not filed within the aforesaid period, the respondents will be at liberty to take steps to forthwith evict the appellant from the said unit as the license term has expired. Pending applications shall also stand disposed of.

¶28

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

¶29

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J

¶30

MARCH 4, 2025/ rl

¶31

LPA 166/2025

¶32

Page 3 of 3

¶33

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 01/07/2025 at 15:30:11

Najnin Khatun v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Najnin Khatun 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sms Packers Private Limited Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 8 Delhi & Ors.

Vishul Kapasia Vs University of Delhi through Its Vice-Chancellor & Ors.

B R Goel and Sons HUF Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 29 Delhi

Harish Kumar Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and Ors.

Shri Ruchit Bansal & Anr. Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Narinder Singh Nagpal Vs Union of India through Secretary Ministry of Defence & Ors.