Dismissed

M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors.

Delhi HC2 Feb 2026W.P.(C)/17319/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Justice Amit Bansal dismissed multiple writ petitions challenging the denial of catering license renewal. The Court held that licenses granted via tender under the 2017 Policy are non-renewable, upholding previous judgments and dismissing claims based on conflicting Railway Code clauses.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners dismissed; directed to vacate premises after expiring extended seven-month period.

M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises Vs Union of India and Ors. — Company and Corporate | Delhi HC (2026)

¶1

$~37 to 69

¶2

* IN THEHIGH COURTOF DELHIAT NEW DELHI

¶3

% Date of decision: 2^nd February, 2026

¶4

W.P.(C) 19100/2025 & CM APPL. 79494/2025 KAUSHALYA MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates. versus UNLON OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Viplav Acharya, SPC, Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocate for UoI. 38 + W.P.(C) 19103/2025 & CM APPL. 79501/2025 ANIL KUMAR JHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Himanshu Sethi, SPC with Mr. Sanjay Pal, GP. Mr. Rishabh Sahu, SPC with Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Karan Malhotra, GP. 39 + W.P.(C) 19107/2025 MD NASIR ALAM .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai

¶5

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶6

¶7

Page 1 of 22

¶8

and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶9

versus

¶10

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Umang Chopra, SPC with Mr. Karan Malhotra, GP.

¶11

¶12

W.P.(C) 19187/2025 MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Shashank Bajpai, CGSC with Ms. Aashna Mehra and Mr. Vatsal Tripathi, Advocates. 41 + W.P.(C) 11962/2025 & CM APPL. 48798/2025, CM APPL. 52939/2025

¶13

MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUMAR MANGLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates. versus

¶14

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Mr. Yash Basoya and Mr. Kunal Dixit, Advocates. 42 + W.P.(C) 19198/2025 & CM APPL. 79974/2025 SHANTI KRISHAN DARBAR .....Petitioner

¶15

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶16

¶17

Page 2 of 22

¶18

Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶19

versus

¶20

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Nirvikar Verma, Senior Panel Counsel and Mr. Varun Kumar, Advocate for UoI (through videoconferencing ). Mr. Mayank Sharma, Senior Panel Counsel for UoI.

¶21

¶22

¶23

M/S RAJA CATERER .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶24

versus

¶25

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents

Through:

RAM BHAJANGOND .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶31

versus

¶32

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Ekta Chaudhary & Ms. Rushali Sikand, Advocates for UoI.

¶33

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

Page 3 of 22

RAKESH KUMAR AGARWAL HUF .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh & Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Piyush Gupta, CGSC with Mr. Atishay Jain, Ms. Yamini Bansal and Ms. Diksha Bansal, Advocates. 46

¶39

W.P.(C) 19540/2025 NITU SINHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶40

versus

¶41

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ramjee Pandey, SPC. 47 + W.P.(C) 16692/2025 & CM APPL. 68498/2025 M/S SHIV SHAKTI FOODS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶42

versus

¶43

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶44

¶45

Page 4 of 22

¶46

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rohan Jaitley, CGSC with Mr. Dev Pratap Shahi, Mr. Varun Pratap Singh and Mr. Yogya Bhatia, Advocates.

¶47

¶48

+ W.P.(C) 12880/2025 & CM APPL. 52588/2025

¶49

MS BH CATERING SERVICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶50

versus

¶51

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar, Mr. Gaurav Khosla and Mr. Virender Pratap Charak, Advocates for UoI. Mr. Gopesh Jindal and Ms. Malvika, Advocates for R-1.

¶52

¶53

+ W.P.(C) 12914/2025 & CM APPL. 52788/2025

¶54

MEGHNA RAJENDRA KUMAR MANGLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶55

versus

¶56

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikrant N. Goyal, Mr. Piyush Wadhwa, Mr. Yash Basoya and Mr.Kunal Dixit, Advocates.

¶57

¶58

W.P.(C) 12959/2025 & CM APPL. 52919/2025

¶59

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶60

¶61

Page 5 of 22

¶62

MS JAYABEN CATERERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶63

versus

¶64

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Ms. Annu Singh, Advocates for UoI. Mr. Sarvesh P. Shrivastava, GP.

¶65

¶66

W.P.(C) 13249/2025 & CM APPL. 54375/2025

¶67

SMT. SMITA S KUSHWAHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶68

versus

¶69

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Mr. Anand Awasthi and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocates.

¶70

¶71

W.P.(C) 13433/2025 & CM APPL. 55133/2025

¶72

SH. BASUKINATH	.....Petitioner
Through:	Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar,
	Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam
	Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms.
	Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶73

versus

¶74

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

¶75

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶76

¶77

Page 6 of 22

¶78

Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sharank Dubey, Advocates.

¶79

¶80

+ W.P.(C) 13783/2025 & CM APPL. 56466-56467/2025

¶81

SAGAR RAJENDRA KUMAR MANGLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Mr. Anand Awasthi and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocates. 54 + W.P.(C) 13794/2025 & CM APPL. 56604/2025 SMT. MANJU JAISWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Syed Abdul Haseeb, CGSC with Muhammad Aamir Khan, Advocate. 55 + W.P.(C) 13804/2025 & CM APPL. 56628/2025 SAGAR RAJENDRA KUMAR MANGLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms.

¶82

Signature Not Verified

¶83

¶84

Page 7 of 22

¶85

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶86

Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶87

versus

¶88

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC with Mr. Anand Awasthi and Mr. Rishabh Jain, Advocates.

¶89

¶90

+ W.P.(C) 13846/2025 & CM APPL. 56767/2025

¶91

SH. BASUKI NATH .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶92

versus

¶93

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Neha Rastogi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Sharank Dubey, Advocates.

¶94

¶95

¶96

W.P.(C) 13869/2025 & CM APPL. 56848/2025

¶97

MANOJ KUMAR AGRAWAL .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶98

versus

¶99

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Mr. Arnav Mittal, G.P for UoI. Mr. Siddharth Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Sonali Modi and Mr. Mukul

¶100

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

Page 8 of 22

Dev, Advocates.

+ W.P.(C) 14034/2025 & CM APPL. 57391/2025

¶106

SMT. VIBHA AMIT GUPTA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶107

versus

¶108

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. P.S. Singh, CGSC with Ms. Annu Singh, Advocates for UoI. 59

¶109

W.P.(C) 14367/2025 & CM APPL. 58821-58823/2025 KAUSHALYA MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶110

versus

¶111

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Viplav Acharya, SPC for UoI. 60 + W.P.(C) 15695/2025 & CM APPL. 64180/2025, CM APPL. 76429/2025

¶112

DEEPAK NARAIN .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶113

Signature Not Verified

¶114

¶115

Page 9 of 22

¶116

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶117

versus

¶118

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, Senior Panel Counsel with Mr. Mayank Saraswat, Advocate for UoI.

¶119

¶120

+ W.P.(C) 15799/2025 & CM APPL. 64737/2025

¶121

SA)JJEEV KUMAR KUSHWAHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶122

versus

¶123

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Mishra, SPC with Mr. Sanjiv Kumar Saxena, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Ms. Reba Jena Mishra and Ms. Poonam Shukla, Advocates for UoI.

¶124

¶125

¶126

W.P.(C) 15858/2025 & CM APPL. 64921/2025

¶127

MANOJ KUMAR AGARWA	L		.....P	etitio	ner
Through:	Mr.	Dinesh Ku	mar	Tiwa	ry, Mr.
	Chan	dan Kumar,	Mr.	Shub	ham Rai
	and Adv	Mr. Jay ocates.	Pra	kash	Pathak,
versus

¶128

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddharth Shankar Ray, CGSC with Ms. Sonali Modi & Mr. Mukul Dev, Advocates.

¶129

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

Page 10 of 22

+ W.P.(C) 17319/2025 & CM APPL. 71290-71292/2025

¶134

M/S OM SAI RAM ENTERPRISES .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶135

versus

¶136

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Anshuman, SPC with Mr. Vaibhav Sood, Advocate.

¶137

¶138

+ W.P.(C) 17324/2025 & CM APPL. 71298/2025

¶139

SADEEK ALI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Himanshu Nayyar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocates. (Through VC) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Rajendra Sahu, Senior Panel Counsel for UoI with Mr. Nitin Jain (G.P.) and Ms. Nitika Dubey, Advocates.

¶140

¶141

W.P.(C) 17981/2025 & CM APPL. 74362/2025 KAUSHALYA MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates.

¶142

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

Page 11 of 22

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Viplav Acharya, SPC for UoI. 66 + W.P.(C) 17998/2025 & CM APPL. 74505/2025 KAUSHALYA MEENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Jitender Mehta, Mr. Lalit Kumar, Mr. Abhinav Kumar, Mr. Shivam Pahal, Mr. Avaneesh Singh and Ms. Neha Malik, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: 67 + W.P.(C) 18626/2025 & CM APPL. 77416/2025 MANJU DEVI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Akhil Mittal, SPC for UoI with Ms. Shanya Das Pattanayak and Ms. Riddhi Jain, Advocates. 68 + W.P.(C) 18665/2025 & CM APPL. 77560/2025 M/S B H CATERING SERVICE .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr.

¶147

Signature Not Verified

¶148

¶149

Page 12 of 22

¶150

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶151

Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶152

versus

¶153

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shubhra Parashar & Mr. Virender Pratap Singh Charak, Advocates for UoI.

¶154

¶155

+ W.P.(C) 18963/2025

¶156

ARVIND KUMAR .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mr. Shubham Rai and Mr. Jay Prakash Pathak, Advocates.

¶157

versus

¶158

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Jagdish Chandra Solanki, CGSC with Mr. Siddharth Bajaj and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Chaudhary, Advocates for UoI.

¶159

Mr. Surjeet Singh, G.P.

¶160

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

¶161

AMIT BANSAL, J. (Oral)

¶162

All the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed seeking direction to the respondents to renew the catering license awarded in favour of the petitioners by the respondents.

¶163

Since all the present writ petitions raise a common issue, all the said

¶164

Signature Not Verified

¶165

¶166

Page 13 of 22

¶167

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶168

petitions are being decided by way of this common judgment.

¶169

At the hearing on 28^th January, 2026, it was decided that W.P.(C) 19100/2025 and W.P.(C) 11962/2025 shall be the lead matters. 4. Accordingly, the facts in W.P.(C) 19100/2025 have been considered for the purposes of this judgment. 5. On 21^st January, 2020, the respondents allotted to the petitioner a license for operating Catering Stall / Special Minor Unit (Women) No.24 at Platform no.6, Vadodara Railway Station.

¶170

A Master License Agreement was signed between the petitioner and the respondents on 21^st October, 2020. In terms of the said Master License Agreement, the tenure of the license was for a period of five (5) years from 17^th October, 2020 to 17^th October, 2025.

¶171

There was an earlier round of litigation in which similarly placed persons who had been allotted catering units at various railway stations under Catering Policy 2017. A batch of writ petitions were filed claiming the following reliefs:

¶172

“1. The present batch of petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed inter alia seeking the following reliefs:

¶173

a. to declare the Clause No. 11 of the Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2017 dated 27.02.2017 (“Catering Policy 2017”) issued by Railway Board as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio. b. to declare impugned Licence Agreement executed between petitioner and concerned respondent as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null and void-ab-initio and also set aside the License Agreement as regards its tenure is concern;

¶174

c. a direction to the respondents to renew the license of the petitioners catering units in terms of judgment passed by Supreme Court of India South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn. ;

¶175

d. a direction to the respondents to extend the benefit of extension of license period to the petitioners in proportionate to the reduced

¶176

Signature Not Verified

¶177

¶178

Page 14 of 22

¶179

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶180

license fee during the Covid-19 pandemic period and as per the benefit given to other units.”

¶181

The aforesaid batch of petitions was decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 30^th May, 2024.

¶182

The Coordinate Bench held that the licenses of the petitioners were subject to terms and conditions outlined in the Catering Policy 2017 and hence were non-renewable. The relevant observations made in the said judgment are given below:

¶183

“14. I have given anxious consideration to the matter. I am unable to agree with the contention of the petitioners that they are entitled to renewal of license.

¶184

15. The petitioners participated in the tender for grant of license, knowing fully well that tenure of the license shall be for 5 years only and there shall be no extension/renewal. The petitioners were successful in the tender. License agreements were also executed between the parties. The petitioners are operating their catering units since then. Now at the fag end of expiry of their tenure, they seek to challenge Clause 11 of the Catering Policy 2017 and seek an extension in derogation of the terms of the license. The same cannot be permitted. The petitioners were under no compulsion to enter into these contracts. It is not open for the petitioners who are the successful bidders to turn around and seek to avoid the terms set out in the license.

¶185

*** *** ***

¶186

20. Accepting the contentions of the petitioners would tantamount to holding that they have a permanent, indefeasible and perpetual right to seek extension/renewal of their licenses for an indefinite period of time. This cannot be permitted. Accepting the plea of the petitioners would also have a deleterious impact on the railways as the same would tantamount to holding that once the railways has granted a license to any particular person, it is denuded of the power to bring the license to an end, despite contractual provision/s to the contrary. This would completely inhibit the railways from introducing fresh financial/public participation models and/or offering opportunities to another deserving set of persons to operate catering units.

¶187

*** *** ***

¶188

22. The minor catering units reserved for specific categories are exclusively allocated to eligible individuals from those reserved categories. Individuals from reserved categories are not competing

¶189

Signature Not Verified

¶190

¶191

Page 15 of 22

¶192

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶193

against those from the general category (or corporations) for the allocation of catering units. Further, as highlighted by learned counsel for the respondents, re-tendering of minor catering units serves to rectify disparities in opportunities within the same group of individuals. This ensures a larger portion of the public (within their respective categories) has access to adequate livelihood opportunities. In facts of the present case, this court is unable to comprehend how the policy decision of the railway to re-tender catering units after expiry of the tenure would deprive right to livelihood to the petitioners. The petitioners are at liberty to participate in fresh tender that may be floated by the railways. They will be pitted against the individuals from the same category. For example, a person who is below the poverty line will be competing for a catering unit against a person who is below the poverty line, and not against any corporations. Granting a license in perpetuity, as is sought by the petitioners, would be antithetical to equality of opportunity guaranteed under the Constitution. In the factual context of these cases, that the contention that the Clause 11 of the Catering Policy 2017 is violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India, is completely unfounded. The said contention is consequently rejected.

¶194

23. In the present case, the licenses held by the petitioners are subject to the terms and conditions outlined in their respective licenses and Catering Policy 2017. The terms of license and said policy explicitly render the licenses non-renewable. Consequently, it is beyond the purview of this Court to mandate the renewal of a license in derogation of the Catering Policy 2017 and in derogation of the express terms of license.”

¶195

[emphasis supplied]

¶196

In light of the aforesaid findings, the writ petitions were dismissed. However, the Court gave three (3) months’ period to the petitioners therein to vacate the catering units in question, subject to payment of the license fee. The findings given in paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment are set out below:

¶197

“30. In the circumstances, this Court finds no merit in the present petitions and the same are accordingly dismissed. However, since the petitioners have been operating these minor catering units for a significant period of time, to enable the petitioners to make a transition and make alternative vending arrangement/s, this Court

¶198

Signature Not Verified

¶199

¶200

Page 16 of 22

¶201

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶202

considers it apposite to grant a period of 3 months to the petitioners (from the date of the extended license period after taking into account the dies non period; OR from the date of this judgment, whichever is later) to vacate the catering units in question. The same shall be subject to payment of usual license fee. It is directed accordingly.”

¶203

The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the petitioners therein before the Division Bench. However, the appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the judgment of the Division Bench dated 9^th August, 2024, are set out below:

¶204

“7. On identical issues, raised in LPA 743/2024 titled “Ram Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors” decided on 5^th August, 2023; LPA 745/2024 “Manoj Kumar Agarwal vs. Union of India & Ors” decided on 5^th August, 2023 and LPA 748/2024 “Hani Khatoon vs. Union of India & Ors” decided on 6^th August, 2023, we have repelled similar arguments and dismissed the said appeals. The only difference being in the nature of stalls, in that, in those appeals, the issue pertained to catering trolleys/stalls whereas in this appeal, it concerns the book stalls. Other than that, the issues are identical. In those appeals, we have only reiterated the directions contained in para 30 of the impugned judgement therein passed by the learned Single Judge. 8. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed, reiterating the directions in para 36 of the impugned judgement dated 29^th May, 2024 passed in the underlying writ petition. Pending applications stand disposed of. No order as to costs.”

¶205

The judgment of the Division Bench was challenged by the petitioners therein by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed vide order dated 27^th August, 2024. However, while dismissing the SLPs, the Supreme Court extended the time granted by the Single Judge by a further period of four (4) months.

¶206

The petitioner herein, filed a fresh writ before this Court being WP(C) 6379/2025, seeking grant of extension of seven months in terms with the judgment of this Court dated 30^th May, 2024 as modified by the Supreme Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with the following directions:

¶207

Signature Not Verified

¶208

¶209

Page 17 of 22

¶210

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶211

“14.Accordingly, it is directed that, subject to payment of license fees, the petitioner will be allowed to operate the Special Minor Unit (SMU) (Women)/Catering Stall No. 24 at Platform No. 6 of Vadodara Railway Station for a period of 7 months from 16th October, 2025, at stipulated license fees.

¶212

15.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.”

¶213

The present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners premised on a new document which came to the knowledge of the petitioners i.e. ‘Indian Railway Code for Traffic (Commercial) Department, Revised Edition,1993’ (‘Indian Railway Code for Traffic’). The petitioners have placed reliance on para 712 of the said document to claim that the licenses granted in their favour can be further extended, subject to the performance of the licensee being satisfactory. The relevant para 712 relied by the petitioner is set out below:

¶214

“ Renewal

¶215

712. After expiry of 5 years, the licence can be further extended subject to the performance of the licencee being satisfactory during the previous agreemental period. The decision regarding renewal shall be taken based on the recommendations of the Screening Committee and shall consist of 3 SAG Officers, in case of large/important units and at least senior scale level for other units. ”

¶216

It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of renewal of license in terms of the aforesaid para 712. This para was amended by the respondents during the pendency of the present writ petitions on 14^th January, 2026 in the following terms:

¶217

Signature Not Verified

¶218

¶219

Page 18 of 22

¶220

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶221

It is contended that the aforesaid amendment to para 714 is prospective and hence would not be applicable to the petitioners who are prior allotees.

¶222

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the aforesaid policy document is not applicable to the petitioners. It is stated that para 703 of the said policy document clearly provides that this policy is not applicable where the licenses have been given on the basis of a tender. This policy would apply only where licenses have been given by calling for applications. Para 703 on which reliance is placed by the respondents is set out below:

¶223

“ Applications

¶224

703. Catering/vending licences should be awarded by calling applications. Tender system for selection of licencees shall not be followed. Applications should be invited only from professional and reputed caterers through press advertisement. ”

¶225

This Court finds merit in the submission of the respondents that the aforesaid policy document is not applicable in the case of the petitioners who have all been granted licenses pursuant to a tender document.

¶226

Signature Not Verified

¶227

¶228

Page 19 of 22

¶229

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶230

The petitioners entered into a Master License Agreement with the respondents wherein the terms and conditions of license were stipulated. The Master License Agreement states that the license has been granted in terms of the 2017 Catering Policy. The Master License Agreement also clearly stipulates that there cannot be any renewal of the license. The relevant clauses of the Master License Agreement are set out below:

¶231

“WHERE AS:

¶232

A. Railway has mandated under the Catering Policy 2017 (“Policy”) to improve, inter-alia, the quality of catering services for providing food and beverage services to passengers.

¶233

*** *** ***

¶234

ARTICLE 3: TENURE OF THE AGREEMENT

¶235

3.1 The Tenure of the Agreement will commence on the Commencement Date, as provided in Article 1.1, as Five (5) years only and subject to the provisions of Article 9 and Article 17 herein below, if not terminated. The contract period is from 17^th October, 2020 (Saturday).

¶236

19.1 There will be no extension/renewal.”

¶237

[emphasis supplied]

¶238

Therefore, in my considered view, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the aforesaid Indian Railway Code for Traffic is completely misplaced. Consequently, the amendment to para 712 of the said Catering Policy of 2017 would be of no consequence. The issue regarding the entitlement of the petitioners to seek a renewal of their license has been decided by this Court in the judgment of 30^th May, 2024, which has been upheld till the Supreme Court. The present petitions are nothing but an attempt to reopen the issue which has already been settled.

¶239

It is also pertinent to note that pursuant to the earlier round of litigations, all the petitioners have filed undertakings before this Court

¶240

Signature Not Verified

¶241

¶242

Page 20 of 22

¶243

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶244

stating that they will vacate the premises after the seven (7) months’ period extension granted to them.

¶245

By filing the present writ petitions, the petitioners are seeking to resile from the said undertaking which cannot be permitted.

¶246

Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P.(C) 11962/2025 has placed reliance on a communication dated 12^th November, 2024 issued by the Jabalpur Branch of the Railways wherein an extension has been granted to one of the caterers running a food stall at Jabalpur Railway Station. Hence, it is contended that the respondents are acting in a discriminatory manner.

¶247

The respondents in their counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid petition have duly explained that there is no parity between the case of the petitioner and the case of the contractor in Jabalpur to whom extension has been granted.

¶248

It has been explained that the license of old catering units which were originally awarded prior to the Catering Policy of 2010, was renewed in that case. Therefore, no case of parity is made out by the petitioner.

¶249

The petitioners have also placed reliance on the order passed by the Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5981/2025 wherein a direction has been issued to the respondents to constitute a Screening Committee as per para 712 of the guidelines to consider the application of the petitioner for renewal of the license.

¶250

The said order passed by the Rajasthan High Court does not contain any reasons and therefore does not hold any precedential value. Nor does it appear that the judgment passed by this Court on 30^th May, 2024 was

¶251

Signature Not Verified

¶252

¶253

Page 21 of 22

¶254

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

¶255

brought to the attention of the Rajasthan High Court in the said case. 28. In light of the facts which have been brought forth before this Court by the respondents, including the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30^th May, 2024, I am not inclined to follow the approach adopted by the Rajasthan High Court.

¶256

In view of the discussions above, this Court does not find merit in the aforesaid batch of petitions. Consequently, the writ petitions along with all pending applications are dismissed.

¶257

A direction is issued to the petitioners to forthwith handover possession of the premises where the seven (7) months’ period extension granted by the orders passed by the Court have already expired.

¶258

In matters where the aforesaid seven (7) months’ period has not expired, the petitioners shall handover possession to the respondents after the said seven (7) months’ period expires.

¶259

AMIT BANSAL, J.

¶260

FEBRUARY 2, 2026 Rzu

¶261

Signature Not Verified

¶262

¶263

Page 22 of 22

¶264

Digitally Signed By:VIVEK MISHRA Signing Da te:0 6.02.2026 10:48:20

M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Om Sai Ram Enterprises v. Union of India and 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

UOI & Ors. Vs Kasturi Devi

Bhartiya Postal Emp Unoin & an Vs U.O.I & Anr.

Urmila Devi Vs UOI & Ors.

Attar Singh Kashyap Vs UOI & Ors.

Pravin Pandurang Mokal & Anr. Vs the District Medical Board

Lakshay Creation Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 60(7) Delhi

Rwa Dwarka Punarwas Colony (Regd.) Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Bhuneshwar Vats Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Sulekha Yadav Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Nitin Saini Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

M/S Vpssr Facilities Vs Union of India & Ors.

Meghna Rajendra Kumar Mangla Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hari Rajmanikkam (President of Proposed Political Party Bhartiya Dravida Janatha Party Approved Nam Vs Election Commission of India

Mohd Jameel Vs the Commissioner Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.