Disposed

M/s Arenco Catering v. The Union Of India

Telangana HC10 Apr 2017WP/11966/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single judge disposed of a writ petition challenging the closure of railway catering stalls. The court directed the railway to continue the petitioners' possession until the tender process concludes, allowing them to vacate only after new tenderers are allotted.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to continue petitioners till tender process completed and successful tenderers allotted.

M/s Arenco Catering Vs The Union Of India — Telangana HC (2017) — LawSathi Research

¶1

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 11966 of 2017

¶2

ORDER:

¶3

This writ petition is filed challenging the action of respondent No.3-Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Vijayawada Division, South Central Railway in closing the catering stalls of the petitioners in platform Nos.2 and 3 at Rajahmundry; platform No.1 at Ongole; platform Nos.2 and 3 at Vijayawada; platform Nos.4 and 5 at Tenali; platform No.4 at Nellore and platform Nos.2 and 3 at Gudur Railway Stations in spite of the directions issued by the Railway Board to extend the period of contract.

¶4

The petitioners state that they are running the above stalls in the respective Railway Stations and five years term came to an end by 2014. Though they are entitled for three years renewal, they were not granted and even otherwise also, three years term would also come to an end in 2017. It is their case that since they have applied for extension of lease by three more years, they are entitled to continue till the end of the three years period. However, they state that the respondents extended the temporary licence to them for a further period of three months till 31.05.2017 or clarification with regard to the renewal is received from the Railway Board.

¶5

Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that in view of expiry of the lease period, the respondents have initiated process of tenders for grant of lease in favour of fresh tenderers and the petitioners are also entitled to participate in the same.

¶6

¶7

In view of initiation of the process of tender, the petitioners agreed to vacate the stalls in their possession as and when new tenderers are allotted the said stalls. At that stage, this Court directed the petitioners to file an undertaking and accordingly, they have filed the same to the effect that they shall vacate the stalls and handover the same the moment the tenders are awarded to the new successful tenderers.

¶8

In view of the said undertaking, the writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to continue the petitioners till the tender process is completed and successful tenderers are allotted the stalls. If for any reason, the tender process is not completed, it is open to respondent No.2-Divisional Railway Manager, Vijayawada Division, south Central Railway to pass appropriate orders keeping in view the policy of the Railway Board, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall continue to pay the licence fee till they vacate the stalls.

¶9

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶10

________________________ A.RAMALINGESWARA RAO,J Dt:10.04.2017 kdl

¶11

M/s Arenco Catering v. The Union Of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s Arenco Catering 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bolineni Anji Babu Vs Pappu Venkata Lakshamma

M/s.Manpower Servicing Agencies, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

M/s.Manpower Servicing Agencies, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Begari Santhosh, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Special Chief Secretary

G. Veeraiah Vs The State of Telangana, Rep.by its Principal Secretary

Chanda Sathyanarayana, Vs The State of Telangana, Rep. by its Principal Secretary