Dismissed

Ramesh Kumar Jain Alias Ramesh Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Madan Lal Jain v. the Union of India

Rajasthan HC15 Apr 2025CW/1957/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged a limited license renewal. The court ruled that the five-year license had expired and the governing policy allows no renewal, dismissing the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition holding the response was limited and the petition was dismissed, and the Stay application was dismissed.

Ramesh Kumar Jain Alias Ramesh Chand Jain Son of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2025)

¶1

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1957/2025

¶4

Ramesh Kumar Jain Alias Ramesh Chand Jain Son Of Late Shri Madan Lal Jain, Aged About 64 Years, Resident Of Flat No 404, Manglytan Apartment Near Jain Mandir, Kota Junction, Kota, Rajashtan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Union Of India, New Delhi, Through General Manager, Western Central Railway, Head Quarter Office At Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶8

Chief Commercial Manager (Catering), Western Central Railway, Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

¶9

Divisional Railways Manager, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajsthan.

¶10

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶11

Station Manager (Gazetted) Kota, West Central Railway, Kota, Rajasthan.

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Prakash Jha for Mr. Ashvin Garg For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.C. Sharma

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶15

Order

¶16

15/04/2025

¶17

The instant writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner with the following prayer:-

¶18

“1. It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to accept and allow the present writ petition filed by the petitioner and by issuing appropriate writ, order or direction:

(2 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

a) The respondents may kindly be directed to renew license of the petitioner for the entire year of 2025 instead of a limited prayer as intended by the respondent vide letter dated 02.01.2025;

¶23

b) The respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioner to run stall and work as licence vendor for the entire year 2025 at Plat Form No.1 of Railway Station, Kota; c) Heavy and exemplary cost may kindly be imposed on the respondents and the same may kindly be awarded to the petitioner as the respondents forced the petitioner to file the writ petition.”

¶24

This case has a history of chequered litigation as before filing this writ petition, the petitioner has already filed several litigation before Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court regarding the subject catering service/stall. However, this writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the impugned action of the respondents whereby the license of the petitioner to run the catering service/stall at Platform No.1/1A, between COP NO.12 & 13, Kota Railway Station has been renewed only for period from 01.01.2025 to 08.02.2025 as vide communication dated 02.01.2025, the petitioner has been asked to deposit license fees to the tune of Rs.43,936/- only for the period from 01.01.2025 to 08.02.2025 for running the stall. Meaning thereby license of the petitioner has been renewed only till 08.02.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner would not be allowed to run the subject stall/catering service. Hence, this writ petition.

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

(3 of 8)

Shri Prakash Jha, Associate to Shri Ashvin Garg, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in compliance of the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Hon’ble Apex Court, the petitioner has been paying license fees @ Rs.1,25,000/- per annum regularly. There has been no default in payment thereof by the petitioner, but vide impugned communication dated 02.01.2025, the petitioner has been asked to deposit license fees to the tune of Rs.43,936/- only from 01.01.2025 to 08.02.2025 for running the stall, meaning thereby license has been renewed only till 08.02.2025 and thereafter, the petitioner would not be allowed to run the stall/catering service. He submits that the petitioner is eligible for working as license vendor. He fulfills all the requisite eligibility criteria for working as license vendor, however, by issuing demand letter for a limited period, the respondents are intended not to continue the petitioner as license vendor. It is also argued that the stall/catering services has been allotted to the petitioner by the respondents in pursuance of the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, same cannot be discontinued without any valid reason. Considered the case of the petitioner in totality, Hon’ble Supreme Court directed for allotment of the stall in favour of the petitioner. The letter of acceptance was not for a fixed time period and same is being continued from time to time. The action of the respondents is totally arbitrary and illegal. Lastly, it is argued that the petitioner is earning his livelihood by running the stall and if the petitioner would not be allowed to continue the stall, same would badly affect his earning and livelihood. He thus, prays for acceptance of the writ petition.

[CW-1957/2025]

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

(4 of 8)

On the other hand, Shri P.C. Sharma, learned counsel representing Railways opposes the submissions made by petitioner’s counsel. He submits that detailed reply to the writ petition has already been filed. Reiterating the grounds/pleas taken in the reply, Shri Sharma argues that a new Catering policy, 2017 in suppression of earlier Catering Policy 2010 and related guidelines has been formulated by Govt of India, Ministry of Railways, which does not permit any renewal or extension of license. It provides mode of re-allotment only through tendering process. Initially, the father of the petitioner was running stall and after his death, in pursuance of the directions passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court, stall/catering services was allotted in favor of the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2018 for a term of five years. Meanwhile, in September, 2018, the petitioner filed a contempt petition before Hon’ble Supreme Court. On 06.09.2019, while disposing of the contempt petition, Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of the fact that allotment of the stall has already been taken place in favour of the petitioner. In peculiar facts and circumstances, annual fees was fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per annum together with periodical increase on this figure. At the time of disposing of the contempt petition, this was clearly available on record that license for the stall/catering services had been issued in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years only and after considering this fact, the contempt petition was disposed of. He further argues that finally, by effect of order/communication dated 31.01.2020, the petitioner started running stall and on 08.02.2025, this period of five years is going to expire and the

(5 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

stall has been closed for fresh allotment to all the eligible participants. It is also submitted that the petitioner does not have any vested right for any allotment when the tenure is already expired. In the present case, the allotment was made only for five years as per the policy and there is no provision of renewal of the license.

¶37

Heard. Perused the material available on record.

¶38

Initially, Shri Madan Lal Jain, father of the petitioner was working as Commission Vendor since 28.02.1977 at Platform No.1, Kota Railway Station and after his death, in pursuance of the order dated 12.01.2018 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.3588/2017, vide communication dated 11.12.2018, the petitioner was allotted the aforesaid stall of refreshment and coffee at Railway Station Kota, West Central Railway as per applicable terms and conditions of existing Railway Board’s circular and policies. It would be pertinent to note here that Hon’ble Supreme Court in order dated 12.01.2018 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).3588/2017, deemed appropriate to direct the respondents to accommodate the petitioner to run a stall by way of license on any railway platform in the State of Rajasthan. Vide communication dated 11.12.2018, while issuing license for provision of catering services for the period of five years, the license fee (for the entire duration of five years) was determined to the tune of Rs.73,37,237/-.

¶39

Meanwhile, in the month of September, 2018, petitioner filed a contempt petition (No.2095/2019) before Hon’ble Supreme Court with averments that the respondents had published two

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

(6 of 8)

tender notifications for the catering stalls and if the said stalls would be given through those tenders, than the petitioner would not be accommodated. Since vide communication/order dated 11.12.2018 passed by West Central Railway, allotment of the stall has already been made in favour of the petitioner for a period of five years, on 06.09.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court took note of this fact and disposed of the contempt petition with the following directions and observations,:-

¶44

“Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

¶45

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the allotment of the Stall having since taken place , the Annual License fee should be fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- p.a. This is for a period of five years from today together with periodical increase on this figure as per policy. On a demand being made, the petitioner is given a period of four weeks within which to deposit the Annual License fee for the first year.

¶46

The contempt petition is disposed of accordingly.”

¶47

Thus, it is clear that at the time of disposing of the contempt petition, the petitioner has already been issued license to run stall/catering services for five years vide communication dated 11.12.2018 and Hon’ble Supreme Court disposed of the contempt petition after taking note of the fact that allotment of stall have already taken place. However, in peculiar facts, the license fees was fixed at Rs.1,25,000/- per annum. It was also observed in the order dated 06.09.2019 that the license was for a period of five years together with periodical increase on this figure as per policy. The operation of the stall by the petitioner finally started after

(7 of 8)

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

issuing of communication dated 31.01.2020 for a period of five years, which now has expired.

¶52

9 The catering services on trains are governed by Catering Policy, 2017, formulated by Government of India, Ministry of Railways. Clause 11 of the Policy, 2017 provides for tenure of all major units and minor units, which is reproduced hereinbelow for ready-reference:-

¶53

“11 TENURE

¶54

11.1 Tenure of all major units being handed over to IRCTC will be governed as per Catering Policy 2010 till the expiry of the contracts. IRCTC shall manage these units as per the provisions of this policy.

¶55

11.2 Tenure of Food Plaza shall be for a period of nine years. Tenure of all other catering units (Major Units & Minor Units) will be for a period of five years only. There will be no further extension/renewal, except for units specifically referred to in para 3.8.1.”

¶56

10 Thus, neither the order dated 06.09.2019 passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court nor the relevant clause of the Policy suggest for further extension/renewal of the license beyond the period of five years. From the aforesaid facts, it is manifest that there arises no question for renewal of the license after expiry of period of five years. After hearing and considering submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents, I am of the considered opinion that the respondents have not committed any illegality in renewing the license of the petitioner in part to run the aforesaid catering service till 08.02.2025 as the period of license has already expired. The petitioner nowhere claims that before expiry of the

[2025:RJ-JP:21110]

[CW-1957/2025]

(8 of 8)

tenure of five years, he has been stopped to operate the catering services. The petitioner has not been allotted catering service permanently. Same was allotted only for a period of five years as per applicable Policy. The policy does not provide for further extension/renewal. Thus, I do not find any arbitrariness in the impugned action of the respondents. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and is dismissed as such. Stay application also stands dismissed.

¶61

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶62

MADAN/109

Ramesh Kumar Jain Alias Ramesh Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Madan Lal Jain v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Kumar Jain Alias Ramesh Chand Jain Son of Late Shri Madan Lal Jain 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mukut Bihari S/O Panchulal Vs State of Rajasthan

Maqsood Ali Son of Mahmood Ali Vs Union of India

Olaye Friday Marvellous Son of Olaye Emeka Vs the State of Rajasthan

Vikash Shivhare, S/O. Kamta Prasad Vs the State of Rajasthan

Bebi Zeenat Vs Manager Singh S/O Shree Vidhya Singh

Shankar Lal Sharma S/O Late Shri Chunnilal Sharma Vs Urban Development and Housing Department