Disposed

M/S S S Enterprise v. Union of India and Ors.

Gauhati HC12 May 2025WP(C)/1569/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought directions to set aside a letter stating his representation for selling food items in a railway milk stall was not considered. The Court found the representation had been ignored and directed the respondent to examine it and decide within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent to examine petitioner's representation dated 31.12.2024 and take a decision with reasons within two weeks.

M/S S S Enterprise Vs Union of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Gauhati HC (2025)

Page No.# 1/5

GAHC010057362025

2025:GAU-AS:5864

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶5

Case No. : WP(C)/1569/2025

¶6

M/S S S ENTERPRISE A PROPRIETORSHIP FIRM HAVING IT OFFICE AT ISLAMPUR ROAD, LALMATI GANDHIBASTI, SILPUKHURI GUWAHATI-03 . REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI SUBRATA GHOSH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS , S/O NIRANJAN GHOSH R/O HOUSE NO. 68, SALAPARA , GUWAHATI, P.S. PALTAN BAZAR, DIST.-KAMRUP METRO

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

UNION OF INDIA AND ORS REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF RAILWAY, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI -110001

¶9

2:GENERAL MANAGER N.F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST- KAMRUP METRO 3:CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER/PM N.F RAILWAY MALIGAON GUWAHATI-11 DIST- KAMRUP METRO

¶10

4:DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER N.F RAILWAY RANGIYA DIVISION DIST- KAMRUP RURAL PIN-781354

¶11

5:SENIOR DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F RAILWAY RANGIYA DIVISION DIST- KAMRUP RURAL PIN-782435

¶12

Page No.# 2/5

¶13

6:THE ASSISTANT COMMERCIAL MANAGER N.F RAILWAY RANGIYA DIVISION DIST- KAMRUP RURAL PIN-78243

¶14

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. S BORTHAKUR, MS. S KAKATI

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : DY.S.G.I., MR. S S ROY (C.G.C)

¶16

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA

¶17

ORDER

¶18

Date : 13.05.2025

¶19

Heard Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC for all the respondents

¶20

2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to be issued to the respondents to set aside the letter dated 11.03.2025, issued by the respondent No. 6, whereby the petitioner was intimated that his representation/appeal dated 31.12.2024 had not been considered by the competent authority.

¶21

3. The petitioner’s case is that the petitioner had participated in the Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) dated 07.06.2024 (‘NIT’ in short), for running a milk stall for sale of milk and milk products, for a period of five years. As the petitioner had quoted the highest bid amount, the petitioner was awarded the contract for running the milk stall. The petitioner had thereafter submitted a representation dated 31.12.2024 to the respondent authorities, requesting that he may be allowed to sell various food items, besides milk products, by paying additional license fee if required in the milk stall PF Nos. 2/3 at Rangia Railway Station.

¶22

Page No.# 3/5

¶23

4. The petitioner’s counsel submits that as per Clause 1.1.1 of the NIT, one out of the four main objectives for running the milk stall, is to ensure the provision for providing hygienic, good quality affordable milks/food to the railway passengers, as per laid down guidelines issued by the Railway and any other statutory regulation. He submits that in terms of Clause 1.1.1, in consideration of the award of the license, the bidder is to offer to pay a license fee higher than the minimum license fee fixed for the tenure of license for the milk stall.

¶24

5. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the petitioner is also running a milk stall in PF No. 1, Rangia Railway Station, on the basis of an NIT issued on 11.02.2022. He submits that after being given the tender for running the milk stall in PF No. 1 of the Rangia Railway Station, the petitioner had applied for selling food items in the milk stall of PF No. 1, which was allowed, vide letter dated 14.09.2022. He also submits that similar approvals have been granted by the respondent authorities, to persons running milk stalls in the Guwahati, New Bongaigaon and Goreswar Railway Station.

¶25

6. The petitioner’s counsel thus submits that the petitioner, having a legitimate expectation that he would be granted approval for selling additional items in his milk stall, as has been allowed to other persons, the respondents should be directed to give approval to the petitioner, for selling additional food items in his milk stall in PF Nos. 2/3 in Rangia Railway Station.

¶26

7. Mr. S. S. Roy, learned CGC, on the other hand, submits that earlier there was only limited stalls providing catering items to railway users in PF No.1, Rangia Railway Station. As such, the Railway Authority had allowed the

¶27

Page No.# 4/5

¶28

petitioner to sell additional catering items, after revising the licence fee of the petitioner, over 10% of the existing license fee. However, the Railway authority has not considered the petitioner’s representation to sell additional catering items in the milk stall at PF Nos. 2/3, Rangia Railway Station, as the catering items are already been sold in two other tea stalls, besides there being multipurpose stalls and one refreshment room. Moreover, there are ten tea stalls besides multipurpose stalls in PF Nos. 2/3 of Rangia Railway Station.

¶29

8. Mr. Roy further submits that as per the Chapter 1 of the NIT, the scope of work provided under Clause 1.2, Sub-Clause C, shows that the licensee would be permitted to sell only milk and milk products in the milk stall. As such, there was no infirmity in not considering the petitioner’s representation to sell additional food items in his stall, as the same was the sole discretion of the respondent authority.

¶30

9. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

¶31

10. On perusing the reasons for filing of the present writ petition, this Court finds that the respondent No. 6 in the impugned letter dated 11.03.2025, has stated as follows:-

¶32

“In connection with the above, it is informed to you that the competent authority has not considered your appeal. This is for your kind information.”

¶33

11. A perusal of the above shows that the competent authority has not considered the petitioner’s representation dated 31.12.2024, which has been

¶34

Page No.# 5/5

¶35

considered to be an appeal.

¶36

12. In view of the petitioner’s representation not being considered, this Court is of the view that the respondent No. 4 should examine the petitioner’s representation dated 31.12.2024 and take a decision on the same, by giving reasons. The same should be done within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶37

13. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Comparing Assistant

M/S S S Enterprise v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S S Enterprise 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dilip Patowary Vs the State of Assam and 2 Ors.

Rup Bhanu Nessa Alias Rup Bhanu Vs Union of India and 6 Others

M/S Nes Digboi Bogapani Vs Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited

Reejeet Nunisa Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Shahid Ahmed Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.

Iman Ali Vs the State of Assam and 4 Ors.