Disposed

Hotel Highway Palace v. the Union of India

Kerala HC1 Feb 2021WP(C)/11007/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought renewal of expired identity cards for Platform Vendors. Court rejected immediate renewal pending separate licence fee dispute. Ordered petitioner to resume unit functioning first. Respondent to issue cards based on verification after fee issue decided in other High Courts.

What did the court decide?

Directed to resume unit functioning and apply for card renewal; respondent to consider application post-verification and decide on fees based on pending litigation.

Hotel Highway Palace Vs the Union of India — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021/12TH MAGHA,1942

¶5

WP(C).No.11007 OF 2020(A)

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

M/s HOTEL HIGHWAY PALACE, REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER, P.N. MOHANKUMAR, AGED 65, S/O NARAYANAN, HAVING REGISTERED OFFICE AT N H-47, PEECHI ROAD JUNCTION, PATTIKKADU.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680652.

¶8

BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)

¶9

RESPONDENTS:

¶10

1 THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL BHAVAN, RAISINA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶11

2 DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER(COMMERCIAL), PALAKKAD DIVISION, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, OLAVAKKOD.P.O, PALAKKAD DISTRICT-678002.

¶12

3 INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, 40/8194, SALIH ARCADE, FIRST FLOOR, COVENT ROAD, COCHIN, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT-682035.

¶13

R1-2 BY SRI.A.DINESH RAO, SC, RAILWAYS R3 BY SMT.ASHA CHERIAN, SC, IRCTC

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.11007/2020

: 2 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 1^st day of February, 2021

¶20

The petitioner, a Partnership Firm, is running a nonvegetarian refreshment room at Mangalore Junction Railway Station. As per the tripartite agreement, the petitioner can employ 30 persons who will be called as Platform Vendors, contends the petitioner. Such Platform Vendors will be issued separate identity cards. The period of validity of the identity cards of Platform Vendors deployed by the petitioner stands expired. The petitioner wants to get renewal of such licence. The petitioner is aggrieved by the insistence for separate licence fee for each Platform Vendor, which according to the petitioner, is outside the scope of the agreement.

¶21

The petitioner would point out that as per Ext.P6, the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited3^rd respondent herein, has granted permission to engage

¶22

WP(C) No.11007/2020

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Platform Vendors to other similarly situated contractors. Therefore, the petitioner shall also be given permission to deploy Platform Vendors and the identity cards issued by the 3^rd respondent are liable to be renewed, without insisting on additional licence fees.

¶25

The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent would submit that the question of renewing the identity cards of Platform Vendors would arise only if the unit is functioning. The unit of the petitioner is not functioning since 23.03.2020. Therefore, unless the petitioner resumes the functioning of the refreshment room, no direction can be given to the respondents to renew the identity cards of the Platform Vendors.

¶26

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2.

¶27

It is discernible from the pleadings and arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶28

WP(C) No.11007/2020

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

Standing Counsel that the validity of contract of the petitioner's non-vegetarian refreshment room is up to November, 2022. The petitioner stopped functioning of the refreshment room consequent to the Covid-19 pandemic. Though the petitioner could have operated the refreshment room subsequently, he did not do so because trains were not running. The petitioner submits that now he can start the functioning of the refreshment room in a full fledged manner as trains have resumed scheduled running. But, unless the identity cards of the Platform Vendors are renewed, the petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and damage.

¶31

It is the contention of the learned Standing Counsel that the renewal of identity cards to Platform Vendors should be preceded by proper medical verification, police verification and other administrative requirements. If the petitioner starts functioning of the refreshment room and submits an application to the 3^rd respondent, the 3^rd respondent will consider such application and take appropriate decision based on the verification reports available to the 3^rd respondent.

¶32

WP(C) No.11007/2020

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd

¶35

respondent would submit that the issue of payment of licence fee for the Platform Vendors is under dispute and certain similarly situated contractors have approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.1227/2021 and the Madurai Bench of the Hon'ble Madras High Court. In WMP(MD) No.13578/2019 in WP(MD) No.17010/2019, the Madras High Court has granted an interim order against charging licence fee. The learned Standing Counsel would submit that similar orders are passed by other High Courts also.

¶36

Taking into consideration the afore facts and circumstances of the case, this writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

¶37

(a) After commencing the functioning of the refreshment room, the petitioner shall make application to the 3^rd respondent for renewal of identity cards of Platform Vendors. If such application is made, based on requisite verification and merits, the 3^rd respondent shall issue necessary identity cards to the Platform Vendors to be deployed by the petitioner.

¶38

WP(C) No.11007/2020

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

(b) The 3^rd respondent will be at liberty to levy separate licence fee in respect of the Platform Vendors, depending on the decision on the issue by the High Courts before which the writ petitions are pending.

¶41

(c) Once the 3^rd respondent issues identity cards to the Platform Vendors, then the petitioner will be at liberty to deploy such Platform Vendors.

¶42

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/01.02.2021

WP(C) No.11007/2020

: 7 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF AWARD
	WITH ANNEXURE DATED 24.12.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P2	A TRUE COPY OF THE MASTER LICENSE AGREEMENT DATED 08.11.2017.
EXHIBIT P3	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DATED 18.12.2017.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE IDENTITY CARDS OF THE 29 PLATFORM VENDORS ISSUED BY THE RAILWAY AND ITS ASSOCIATES.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED IN W M P (M D) NO.17010 OF 19 BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS DATED 1.8.2019.
EXHIBIT P6	A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE INDIAN RAILWAY CATERING AND TOURISM CORPORATION LIMITED DATED 22.8.2019.

¶49

Hotel Highway Palace v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hotel Highway Palace v. the Union of India

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

A Thomas Vs State of Kerala

Vinod Kumar P Vs State of Kerala

Gopinathan Palakkal Vs Union of India

R.Velayudhan Nair Vs Kerala Financial Corporation

M/S Thoppil Contractors (India) Pvt.Ltd. Vs Dinesh Aroora

Manu Chandy Jacob Vs Sally