SYNOPSIS - railnews.in

SYNOPSIS

[1]. The issue raised in this petition is pending consideration of

this Hon‟ble Court in W.P.[C] No.373 of 2017, 809 of 2017 & 1019 of

2017 wherein after hearing the parties, their Lordships were pleased

to issue notice and directed to maintain status quo in the matter. It

is submitted that the present writ petition may also tagged with the

same after issuing notice and grating status quo order.

[2]. That the present petition is being filed by the Chai Wala

Welfare Association (Regd.) and its members and the partnership

Firms of the caterers/venders, seeking the enforcement of their

fundamental right to earn their livelihood. The Petitioner No.1 is a

Vender‟s Welfare Society registered under the U.P. Societies

Regitration Act-1960, having aim and object to support its member

in carrying out retail business of consumer goods by its members for

their subsistence in the Railway premises. The other petitioners

“partnership Firms” are legal entity and are working in a joint

venture of several persons and partners. The petitioners are poor

vendors running their vending business on the Railway Stations for

more than five decades. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action

of Respondent in directing the petitioners to choose only one

Unit/Trolley/Khoncha/Kiosk for entire society/firm members and rest

of the Unit/Trolley/Khoncha/Kiosk would be surrendered to the

Railways stated to be in fulfillment of the direction of this Hon'ble

Court in the judgment reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582]. It is humbly

Bar & Bench (www.barandbench.com)

submitted that in the said judgment this Hon'ble Court took a

pragmatic view and directed that only one unit will be renew in

respect of one individual vendor, with an object to eliminate the

concentration in one hand. However said direction is not applicable

to Association/Partnership Firms for obvious reason that the trolleys/

Shops are given to the Society/Partnership Firms, which consist of

its member who don‟t own any thing individually. Further the

members thereof jointly form a body corporate and they run the

Partnership Firms jointly but by individual efforts and the members

are poor section of the society and need protection in consonance

with the principle laid down under the Directives Principles of State

Policy as contained in Chapter–IV of the Constitution of India. In

view of the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 the action of

respondent regarding renewal of only one Trolly/Stall/Khoncha to

the Society/Firms is illegal and violative to the basic spirit of the

Constitution of India.

[3]. It is submitted that the Railway Administration has been

granting licences to run Trolley and Stalls to sell Tea, Biscuits,

Sweets, Poori, Namkeen etc. to the travelling passengers on the

Railway Stations and in the trains. The Railway Administration inters

into agreements with the petitioners and the businesses are run by

the members of the -operative Society/Partnership Firms. The

petitioners are approaching this Hon‟ble Court challenging the

arbitrary action of the respondent by which the Railways


Administration is depriving the petitioner from their livelihood by

taking away the licensed Unit/Trolley/shop/kiosk in the garb of

policy of renewal, stated to be framed in the light of the decision of

this Hon'ble Court reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582]. The respondents

vide letter dated 15.03.2017 directed all the licensees to file an

affidavit, for the purpose of renewal of the license, stating that they

don‟t posses more than one Unit at the Railway premises. Thereafter

a letter dated 21.03.2017 and 22.03.2017 were written by DRM,

Ajmer & N.R. Moradabad addressed to all the Station

Superintendents of the Division to obtain an affidavit from all the

licensee on the profarma affidavit to the effect that the licensee in

question does not possess more than one unit/shop at the Railway

Station. Identical letters were issued by other Divisions asking for

similar affidavit. The petitioners informed the Railway Administration

by different letters including letter dated 05.05.2017 that such

condition would not be applicable to petitioners because the trolleys/

Shops & stalls are given to the Co-operative Society/ Partnership

Firms, which consist of its member/ partners who are poor vendors

and earn their livelihood by selling the eatables on the Railway

Platform and in the trains and they don‟t own any thing individually.

However the prayer of the petitioners were rejected and the

petitioners have been directed by different letters including vide

letter dated 19.05.2017 to submit the one affidavit with observation

that only one Shop or Trolley or kiosk would be given. It is


submitted that the direction as contained in Para 34 of the judgment

reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582] “i.e. only those licensees may be

eligible for renewal of their licences who can declare on affidavit that

they do not have the licence of more than one shop or kiosk in their

name or benami licence at the railway stations with periodical

reasonable increase of licence fee.” are not applicable to the

petitioners because the trolleys/Shops are given to the Co-operative

Society/Partnership Firms which consist of its member/ partners,

who don‟t own any thing individually. The petitioners are

approaching this Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that the

respondents are relying on the decision of this Hon'ble Court and

thereby violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

[4]. It is humbly submitted that the direction of Railway

Administration to submit affidavit stating that “he or she owns only

one unit” is not applicable to Vendor‟s Co-operative Society/

Partnership Firms for obvious reason that the members/ partners

thereof jointly form a body corporate and they run the Co-operative

Society/ Partnership Firms jointly but by individual efforts and the

members are poor section of the society and need protection in

consonance with the principle laid down under the Directives

Principles of State Policy as contained in Chapter–IV of the

Constitution of India. It is submitted that Article-38 of the

Constitution of India mandates that the State shall strive to promote

the welfare of the people by securing, protecting as effectively as it


may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political,

shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Similarly clause -2

of the Article 38 provides that State shall in particular strive to

minimize inequalities in income not only among individuals but also

among groups of the people engaged in different vocations. Article

39 provides that the State shall direct its policies towards securing

that the citizens have the right to earn and adequate means to

livelihood; that the ownership and control of material resources of

the community are so distributed as to best to subserve common

good; that the operation of economic system does not result in

concentration of wealth and means of protection to the common

detriments. Article-41 further provides that State shall within its

economic capacities make effective provisions for securing the right

to work and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age

sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.

The provisions of above mentioned Articles read with Article 14,

Article 19(1)(g) and 21 makes above mentioned condition of

allotment and renewal of only one Trolly/Stall/Khoncha to the

Society/ Partnership Firms, illegal and violative to the basic spirit of

the Constitution of India.

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

00.00.1960: That the Petitioner No.8 [M/s Mathura Prasad & Sons

was allotted 3 Tea Stalls on Platform No.1 and 6 Moving

Push Food Trolley at Railway Station Satna of West


Central Railway. Since then the Petitioner No.8 has been

serving the railway passengers for several decades and

the Railway Administration has been granting license to

catering business to serve the travelling passengers on

the Satna Railway Stations. That the Petitioner Firm has

been doing its vending as per terms and condition of the

agreement and there is no complaint in the work of the

petitioner. In fact the petitioners were directed to deposit

GST and it being paid as per law. Now the Railway

Administration by erroneously interpretating the

Judgment of this Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways

v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare

Assn., reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582 are threatening to

evict the petitioner.

00.00.1965: The Petitioner No.3 [father of the petitioner] has been

doing the catering business at Railway Station Pratapgarh

since 1965. Since then he was are serving the railway

passengers for several decades and the Railway

Administration has been granting license to run

Refreshment Room and catering business to serve the

travelling passengers on the Railway Stations.

21.08.1981: The father of the Petitioner No.2 was engaged with the

Railway catering for few decades and in the year 1981 a

Firm was constituted for running business of catering, in


the name and style of M/s Raj & Co. at Shahjahanpur,

wherein the Petitioner No.2 became partner.

06.01.1992: The Railway Administration to streamline the catering

business has been issuing catering policy from time to

time. The Indian Railway is the main public transportation

system in the country and its main business is carriage of

goods and passengers and catering is an ancillary

subject. The main object of catering policy has been to

provide hygienic, good quality, affordable and cheap food

to the travelling public and this business of catering has

never been treated as source of income of the Indian

Railways.

14.02.1996: An agreement between the Petitioner No.2 [M/s Raj &

Co.] and the Railway Administration was executed on

14.02.1996 for running the Refreshment Room at

Shahjahanpur Railway Station.

15.07.1999: The Petitioner No.5 was allotted two Stall for selling

tea, coffee, sweets and two trolleys for selling fruits at

Sagar Railway Station of the Central Railway. The

petitioner is working satisfactorily. The Railway

Administration is threatening to remove the petitioner

No.5.


20.10.2000: The Commercial Circular No.58 of 2000 was issued

containing the Catering Policy-2000 contained the general

guideline regarding improvement in the standards of

catering/vending services.

09.11.2000: That the Petitioner No.7 [Ms Mohd. Ibrahim & Sons]

was allotted 1 Food Stall on Platform No.1, 2 Tea Stalls

on Platform No. 2/3, 1 Tea Stall on Platform No.4/5,

4Food Moving Trolley at Jabalpur Railway Station by the

Railway Administration. That the Petitioner Firm has been

doing its vending as per terms and condition of the

agreement and there is no complaint in the work of the

petitioner. In fact the petitioners were directed to deposit

GST and it being paid as per law. Now the Railway

Administration by erroneously interpretating the

Judgment of this Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways

v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare

Assn., reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582 are threatening to

evict the petitioner.

26.09.2001: The Petitioner No.4 [M/s Rafia Begum] has been doing

the catering business for long at Railway Station

Fatehpur. For the purpose of catering the Railway

Administration has been issuing license in favour of

petitioner i.e. on 05.03.2002 and thereafter in respect of

Refreshment Room and Trolleys at Railway Station


Fatehpur. Thereafter the license is being extended from

time to time. There are six partners of the Firm M/s Rafia

Begum who are working catering and vending business at

the Railway Station.

28.02.2002: That the Petitioner No.6 was alloted the Refreshment

Tea Stall at Platform No.2/3 at Katni Railway Station on

28.02.2002 and since then he is working satisfactorily.

The Railway Administration is obliged to renew the said

license as per direction dated 29.01.2016 of this Hon‟ble

Court passed in the Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016.

However the Railway Administration is threatening to

evict the Petitioner No.6.

29.10.2004: That the Petitioner No.9 [M/s Syed Hussain Ahmed

& Sons] is doing the catering business at Railway

Station Bareilly for the British period. The

Petitioner Firm was allotted 3 Food Trolleys at

Railway Station Bareilly. There has been no

complaint against the Firm. That the Petitioner Firm

has been doing its vending as per terms and condition of

the agreement and there is no complaint in the work of

the petitioner. Now the Railway Administration by

erroneously interpretating the Judgment of this Hon‟ble

Court in South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry


Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016

[3] SCC 582 are threatening to evict the petitioner.

00.03.2005 The Railway Administration introduced modified

Catering Policy in 2005 under which all the catering

business of the Indian Railways was assigned to new

Corporation constituted by the Indian Railways being

“Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation”

(IRCTC). Due to change in policy and transfer of entire

job to the IRCTC no further agreements were executed

till finalization and implementation of the new schemes.

04.08.2008: An agreement was executed between the partners to

carry out business of catering in the name and style of R

& K Associates w.e.f. 26.01.1996 [Petitioner No.10]. The

Petitioner No.10 is doing their business as per

agreement. On 08.04.2008 the petitioner was allotted

Stall No.2 at Platform No.4/5 at Railway Station Pune and

after completing the formalities the license agreement

was executed between the Petitioner No.10 & respondent

Authorities on 24.11.2008. Thereafter on 24.11.2010 the

Railway Administration executed a tripartite agreement

by which the management of the Stalls were taken over

by the Sr. DCM Pune, w.e.f.24.11.2010. After the first

tenure the Railway Administration granted extension of

the license for another period of three years on


17.06.2013. The petitioner Firm has only one Stall and

under the Judgment of this Hon‟ble Court in South

Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice

Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582 the

petitioner is entitled to be protected. However the

Railway Administration has directed the petitioner to

dismantle the Stall after the period is over.

21.07.2010: A new Catering Policy-2010 was introduced by the

Railways. The express objective of the catering policy

2010 was “(i) To provide hygienic, good quality,

affordable food to the travelling public by adopting best

trade and hospitality industry practices. (ii) The policy

will have an inclusive approach where from the least

advantaged passenger to the relatively affluent will be

provided catering services in a socially responsible

manner which should meet all the social objectives of the

Government, including provisions of reservation as per

Government directives issued from time to time.” In the

poly there was provision for renewal of the licenses.

12.09.2013: The Catering licensee raised an issue as to whether the

licensee under Catering Policy 2005 are entitled to the

benefit of renewal under the Catering Policy 2010 or not.

The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. answered in favour of the

licensee.


27.04.2013: The father of the petitioner No.3 herein gave GPA in

favour of the Petitioner No.3 to run the catering business

in question in view of his old age. 16.02.2016: The

Petitioner No.3 submitted the representation to the

Railway Administration requesting for substitution of the

name of the petitioner no.3 on the place of deceased

father [the original petitioner].

19.03.2015: The petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 filed Writ Petition before this

Hon‟ble Court assailing the action of the Railway

Administration in eliminating the small caterers like

petitioners who are doing their business for last 40-years

is in violation of their Fundamental Rights. It is was

stated that if under the said Policy the Railway

Administration desires to establish more catering units

they may establish the same and may award as per the

terms and conditions of the Catering Policy without

eliminating the existing caterers who are working at

respective Railway Stations for several decades under the

control of Railway Administration itself and meet all the

standards as stipulated in the Catering Policy.

17.04.2015: The said W.P. No.177/2015 was listed before this

Hon‟ble Court and after hearing their Lordships were

pleased to pass following order:-


“Issue notice. Application seeking exemption from filing

official translation is allowed. Until further orders, the

interim stay of the Notification dated 10th March, 2015.

Tag with SLP(C) NO.29714 of 2013.”

27.07.2015: Even after stay order dated 17.04.2015 the respondent

tried to evict the Petitioner No.3 by reviving the old bid

i.e. Tender Notice NIT:V-20-CD-GMU-MB Div-1-14 C and

Bid Notice No.01/2014/Ctg. Dated 23.12.2014 issued by

Northern Railway. Consequently the petitioner file I.A.

No.2 & 3 of 2015, in the W.P.No.177/2015 for stay. After

hearing their Lordships were pleased to allow the said

application.

21.01.2016: That the father of the Petitioner No.3 died during

pendency of the Writ petition, therefore an application for

substation of legal heirs was filed, which was allowed on

21.01.2016.

29.01.2016: The Railway Administration aggrieved by the order of

the Hon'ble High Court preferred SLP wherein leave was

granted. However the appeal was disposed of by

affirming the order of High Court. In the said judgment

[i.e. South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits,

Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016 [3]

SCC 582] this Hon‟ble Court held as under:-


“22. The case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is that

the Railways had the right to enact the Catering

Policy, 2010. In terms of the said Policy, only such

licensees who were granted licence under the 2010

Policy were entitled to get their contracts renewed and

the same benefit could not be extended to those

licensees who were granted licence prior to the 2010

Policy. According to the Catering Policy, 2010, no

provision is made for the renewal of the existing

catering units on the expiry of the term of the

licences. The renewal of the licences of the licensee

under Para 16 of the Policy would apply only to

licensees who were allotted licences under the

Catering Policy, 2010. The appellants have further

submitted that the renewals of the licences by the

Zonal Railways up to 2013 was only meant to operate

as a temporary arrangement till the bidding and

allocation process was finally completed.

23. We are unable to agree with the contention

advanced on behalf of the appellants. The Railway

Board issued Commercial Circular No. 37 dated 9-8-

2010, which contained the following instructions:

“1. Transfer of licence units: * * *

(d) Zonal Railways should renew all agreements which

have expired or are due for expiry in the next 6

months by giving an extension, subject to a maximum

extension of six months from the date of issue of the

Catering Policy, 2010.”

This circular clarifies that the renewal of the licence is

required to be granted to all the existing licensees of


the Minor Units as per Paras 16 and 17 of the Catering

Policy, 2010. It also becomes clear that the existing

licensees need not be included in the tender process.

XXXXXXXXX

27. It is the duty of every welfare State to generate

employment. Presently, millions of youth of the

country are unemployed. The right to livelihood is a

part of right to life, as has been held in Olga Tellis. A

vast majority of the unemployed population of the

country then, is susceptible to being exploited by the

rich and the capitalists. It is the duty of the State,

acting through its instrumentalities to ensure that no

person in a vulnerable position is exploited. In

People‟s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of

India, Bhagwati, J. lamenting on the exploitation of

the weak and the powerless held as under: (SCC pp.

240-41, para 2) XXXXXXX

32. Keeping in view the evolving concept of social

justice, we allow the members of the respondents who

are the licensees to continue their petty business,

especially in the absence of employment potentiality in

the country on account of non-governance and non-

implementation of the constitutional philosophy of an

egalitarian society, which provides the opportunity to

all individuals to lead a life of dignity. The right to life

with dignity has been interpreted to be a part of right

to life by this Court in Francis Coralie Mullin v. UT of

Delhi, as under: XXXXX

33. Therefore, we have to hold that the provisions of

the Catering Policy, 2010 are applicable to the


respondents concerned. The action of the Railways in

not granting renewals of the licences to the members

of the respondents is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair

and discriminatory, and the same cannot be allowed

to sustain in law.

34. For the reasons stated supra, this Court cannot

interfere with the impugned judgment and order of

the High Court. The civil appeals are dismissed. The

order dated 11-4-2014 granting stay of the impugned

order shall stand vacated. We, however, make it clear

that only those licensees may be eligible for renewal

of their licences who can declare on affidavit that they

do not have the licence of more than one shop or

kiosk in their name or benami licence at the railway

stations with periodical reasonable increase of licence

fee. All pending applications are disposed of.

16.02.2016: The Petitioner No.3 submitted the representation to the

Railway Administration requesting for substitution of the

name of the petitioner no.3 on the place of deceased

father [the original petitioner].

29.03.2016: The Writ Petition [C] No.177 of 2015 was allowed by

holding that “The issue on renewal of licence in principle,

is covered by the decision of this Court in Civil Appeal

Nos.618-620 of 2016 decided on 29th January, 2016.

Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed of with

direction to the Railways to take the required further


steps in the light of the judgment dated 29th January,

2016, within six weeks.”

21.04.2016: That the Railway Administration in view of the Circular

No.22/2017 directed the Petitioner No.2 to submit an

affidavit that he has not more than one unit and he

would be ready to surrender the rest of the Unit by giving

choice to retain one by indicating the Unit.

13.07.2016: That after the decision of this Hon'ble Court the Railway

Administration renewed the catering licences from time to

time.

24.01.2017: The last general renewal was issued on 24.01.2017

stating that the existing static units may be granted

extension till 20.07.2017.

27.02.2017: The Railway Administration issued Catering Policy 2017

vide Commercial Circular No.20 of 2017 dated

27.02.2017.

15.03.2017: Since the catering policy 2017 ignored the decision of

this Hon‟ble Court, therefore a Commercial Circular No.

22 of 2017 was issued on 15/03/2017 by making

provision for renewal of the licences as per directions of

this Hon‟ble court in C.A. No.618-620 of 2016. In the said

circular it was stipulated that only those units would be


eligible for renewal of their licences who declare on

affidavit that they don‟t have license for more than one

refreshment room at B and below categories stations or

one Catering Stall or one Trolley or one Khoncha/Dallah

/Wheel Barrow/Hand Barrow/Tray/Table /Tea Balta etc.

It was further stated that licensee, which has already

been renewed for Refreshment Rooms, Catering Stall or

one Trolley or one Khoncha/ Dallah/Wheel Barrow/ Hand

Barrow/Tray/Table /Tea Balta, shall not be eligible to

participate in the tender process at any station during the

currency of the renewed license. It was further stated

that one Catering Stall or one Trolley or one Khoncha/

Dallah/Wheel Barrow/ Hand Barrow/Tray/Table/Tea Balta

shall be treated as one shop or one unit. If the licensee

holds more than one unit under the single or multiple

licenses, he or she shall forgo all other units except the

units which he or she wishes to be renewed.

21.03.2017: In the light of above mentioned commercial circular

issued by the Railway Board, the Senior Divisional

Commercial Managers issued letter addressed to all

Stations Superintendent directing them to obtain affidavit

from the licensees to the effect that they don‟t possess

more than one Stall/Unit. It was further directed that


they may give their option as to which stall they would

prefer to retain.

22.03.2017: Further all Senior Divisional Commercial Managers

issued letter addressed to all Stations Superintendent

directing them to obtain affidavit from the licensees to

the effect that they don‟t possess more than one

Stall/Unit. An affidavit pro forma was also enclosed along

with the said letter which was to be filled up by all the

licensees on a Revenue Stamp of Rs.100.

22.04.2017: Accordingly the Petitioner No. 2 submitted the affidavit

stating that the petitioner has got only one unit and he

may be allowed to continue as per direction of this

Hon‟ble Court.

00.00.2017: It is submitted that since the vendors are selling the

eatables on the platform therefore they are mandated to

obtain license under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

Accordingly the vendor‟s obtained license from time to time

under the said Act.

00.00.2017: It is further submitted that for the purpose of selling the

eatables on the platform by the vendors it is mandatory to

passes medical certificate issued by the Railway Administration

in favour of each and every vendor. These “venders medical


form” has dual purpose i.e. it works as an identity card and as

a medical certificate also.

05.05.2017: In response to the letter dated 21.03.2017 Vendors Co-

operative Society and the Firms informed the respondent

that the Circular No.22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 does

not apply to the petitioner‟s vendors Co-operative Society

/Firms and the individual members have been given

responsibility of the units and the petitioner is a corporate

body and the unit does not belong to any one. Thus the

judgment of this Hon‟ble Court does not apply to the

petitioners.

19.05.2017: That the Railway Administration in many cases did not

accept the affidavits of the vendors by stating that only

one affidavit has to be filed by the person who signed the

license agreement.

03.07.2017: Aggrieved by the action of the Railways some vendors/

Vendor Co-operative Society filed Writ Petition before this

Hon‟ble Court being W.P. [C] No.373 of 2017 and after

hearing their Lordships were pleased to issue notice and

directed maintain status quo in the matter.

22.08.2017: the Petitioner No.2 was threatened by the Railway

Administration by stating that the Refreshment Room at


A-1 Station has been transferred to IRCTC and therefore

the petitioner would have to vacate the premises.

28.09.2017: The Petitioner No.2 replied to the Railway

Administration stating that the petitioner have succeeded

in the writ petition No.177 of 2015 and therefore he could

not be evicted from the Refreshment Room by violating

his fundamental rights.

11.01.2018: M/s Rafia Begam was directed to deposit the License

fee for the period of 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018, vide

letter dated 11.01.2018.

12.01.2018: M/s Rafia Begam deposited the License fee for the

period of 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 on 12.01.2018.

00.02.2018: In the light the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is

submitted that the direction of Railway Administration to

submit affidavit stating that “he or she owns only one

unit” is arbitrary and violative of the petitioners

fundamental right and the direction in question is not

applicable to Indian Railway Catering Co-operative

Society/ Partnership Firms for obvious reason that the

members thereof jointly form a body corporate and they

run the Co-operative Society/ Firms jointly but by

individual efforts and the members are poor section of

the society and need protection in consonance with the


principle laid down under the Directives Principles of

State Policy. That the provisions of Articles 38, 39, 41

read with Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 makes above

mentioned condition of allotment and renewal of only one

Trolly/Stall /Khoncha to the Indian Railway Catering Co-

operative Society/ Partnership Firms illegal and violative

to the basic spirit of the Constitution of India. It view of

these constitutional and factual position the petitioners

submit that direction as contained in Para 34 of the

judgment reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582] “i.e. only those

licensees may be eligible for renewal of their licences who

can declare on affidavit that they do not have the licence

of more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami

licence at the railway stations with periodical reasonable

increase of licence fee.” are not applicable to the

petitioners because the trolleys and installs that are given

to the Indian Railway Catering Co-operative Society/

Partnership Firms which consist of its member who are

poor vendors and earn their livelihood by selling the

tables on the railway platform and in the trains and they

don‟t own any thing individually.

00.02.2018: Hence the present Writ Petition.


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. OF 2017

[UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA]

IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Chai Wala Welfare Association (Regd.) Through its President

Shri Satender Nath Pandey, Gandhi Vihar, Line Par, Distt. Hapur, U.P. ….Petitioner

2. M/s Raj & Co.

Through Manger Mr. S.K. Jain R.R. Room & Train side Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Shahjahanpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

3. M/s Mohd Imran Khan

R.R. Room & Vending Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Pratapgarh & Jaunpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

4. M/s Raqia Begum.

R.R. Room Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Fahtehpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

5. Mr. Uttamchand Gupta

Licensee Tea, Cofee, Sweets Namkeen, & Fruit Stall Sagar, Central Railway, Reg office 8/43 Sadar Bazar,

Sagar M.P. …Petitioner

6. Mr. S.K.Saini, Guru Nanak Ward,

Katni. M.P. …Petitioner

7. M/s M. Ibrahim & Sons Food Stall Licensee

Railway Station, Civil Line Jabalpur, M.P. Through partner Mohd. Waseem …Petitioner


8. M/s Mathura Prasad & Sons, Plate Farm No.1 Western Central Railway Satna M.P. Through partner Vijay Gupta …Petitioner

9. M/s Syed Hussain Ahmed & Sons, Food Contractor, Bareilly Junction,

Bareilly, U.P. Through partner …Petitioner

10. R & K.Associates

Saraf Bazar, Bhusaval, District Jalgaon, Maharashtra,

Through Partner Rajesh Narayan Agarwal …Petitioner

11. M/s Madan Petha Store

Corporate Office 15/315 Noori Gate Near Lady Loyeal, Hospital, Agra, U.P. Through Partner Amit Agarwal …Petitioner

//VERSUS//

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, New Delhi Respondent

2. The General Manager

Northern Railway, H.Q., Baroda House, New Delhi. Respondent

3. The General Manager,

Central Railway, SCT, Mumbai. Respondent 4. The General Manager, West Central Railway, Jabalpur. Respondent 5. The General Manager

North Central Railway, Allahabad. Respondent


4. The Divisional Railway Manager Northern Railway, Moradabad, U.P. Respondent

5. The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway,

Lucknow, U.P. …Respondent 5. The Divisional Railway Manager

West Central Railway, Jabalpur, M.P. … All contesting Respondent

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION

OF INDIA FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE FUNDAMENTAL

RIGHTS ENSHRINED UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19 [1] [G]

AND 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY ISSUING

WRIT CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE

WRIT FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED LETTER/ ORDER

DATED 15.03.2017 [ANNEXURE-P-10] AND FOR

MANDAMUS COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS TO

ALLOW THE PETITIONER VENDORS CO-OPERATIVE

SOCIETY TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS AS PER LAW

WITHOUT ANY ILLEGAL FATTER.

To

The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India

and His Companion Justices of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.

The humble petition of the Petitioners above named.

MOST RESPECTFULLY SHOWETH:

[1]. That the Petitioners are preferring the present Writ Petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of their

Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 [1] [g] and 21 of

the Constitution of India and seeking the enforcement of their

fundamental right to earn their livelihood, by challenging the


impugned letter/ order dated 15.03.2017 [Annexure-P-10], issued

by the Respondents as being violative of the petitioners right

enshrined under Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 read with principles of

the Directive Principles of State Policy. The petitioners are Vender‟s

Cooperative Society/partnership firm registered under the Rajasthan

Co-operative Societies Act 1953, having aim and object to support

its member and to carry out retail business of consumer goods by its

members for their subsistence in the Railway premises. They are

poor vendors running their vending business on the Railway Stations

for more than several decades. The Railway Administration has been

granting licences to run Trolley and Stalls to sell Tea, Biscuits,

Sweets, Poori, Namkeen etc. to the travelling passengers on the

Railway Stations and in the trains. The Railway Administration inters

into agreements with the petitioners [Vendor‟s Society] and the

businesses are run by the members of the Society. The petitioners

are approaching this Hon‟ble Court challenging the arbitrary action

of the respondent by which the Railways Administration is depriving

the petitioner from their livelihood by taking away the licensed

Unit/Trolley/shop/kiosk in the garb of policy of renewal, stated to be

framed in the light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in

2016 [3] SCC 582]. In view of the provisions of Article 14, 19(1)(g)

and 21 the action of respondent regarding renewal of only one

Trolly/ Stall/ Khoncha to the Vendor‟s Co-operative Society illegal

and violative to the basic spirit of the Constitution of India. The


petitioners represented before the Respondents on several dates

including 05.05.2017 regarding their grievance but the respondents

have refused to consider the same.

It is further submitted that since the respondents are tracing

their action referable to the decision of this Hon‟ble Court, therefore

approaching the Hon‟ble High Court on the issue would be a futile

exercise; therefore the petitioners are approaching this Hon‟ble

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for redressal of

their grievances on account of violation of their Fundamental Right

enshrined U/A 14, 19 [1] [G] and 21 of the Constitution of India.

[2]. That the Petitioners are registered Vendors Co-operative

Society/partnership firms and are juristic person under the

Constitution of India and are entitled to invoke the remedy under

Article 32 of the Constitution of India and petitioners are fighting for

the cause of the Railway Venders. The Respondents are State within

the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and they are

amenable to the jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

[3]. That the petitioners have not filed any other petition or similar

petition before this Hon‟ble Court or any other court seeking the

similar or identical relief.

[4]. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to filing of the

present petition are as under:-


[A]. That the Petitioner No.8 [M/s Mathura Prasad & Sons was

allotted 3 Tea Stalls on Platform No.1 and 6 Moving Push Food

Trolley at Railway Station Satna of West Central Railway. Since then

the Petitioner No.8 has been serving the railway passengers for

several decades and the Railway Administration has been granting

license to catering business to serve the travelling passengers on

the Satna Railway Stations. That the Petitioner Firm has been doing

its vending as per terms and condition of the agreement and there

is no complaint in the work of the petitioner. In fact the petitioners

were directed to deposit GST and it being paid as per law. Now the

Railway Administration by erroneously interpretating the Judgment

of this Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers,

Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016 [3]

SCC 582 are threatening to evict the petitioner. Further in the

year 1965 The Petitioner No.3 [father of the petitioner] has been

doing the catering business at Railway Station Pratapgarh since

1965. Since then he was are serving the railway passengers for

several decades and the Railway Administration has been granting

license to run Refreshment Room and catering business to serve

the travelling passengers on the Railway Stations. That on

21.08.1981 the father of the Petitioner No.2 was engaged with the

Railway catering for few decades and in the year 1981 a Firm was

constituted for running business of catering, in the name and style


of M/s Raj & Co. at Shahjahanpur, wherein the Petitioner No.2

became partner.

[B]. The Railway Administration to streamline the catering

business has been issuing catering policy from time to time

including on 06.01.1992. The Indian Railway is the main public

transportation system in the country and its main business is

carriage of goods and passengers and catering is an ancillary

subject. The main object of catering policy has been to provide

hygienic, good quality, affordable and cheap food to the travelling

public and this business of catering has never been treated as

source of income of the Indian Railways.

[C]. An agreement between the Petitioner No.2 [M/s Raj & Co.]

and the Railway Administration was executed on 14.02.1996 for

running the Refreshment Room at Shahjahanpur Railway Station.

Further The Petitioner No.5 was allotted two Stall for selling tea,

coffee, sweets and two trolleys for selling fruits at Sagar Railway

Station of the Central Railway on 15.07.1999. The petitioner is

working satisfactorily. The Railway Administration is threatening to

remove the petitioner No.5. Further on 09.11.2000 the Petitioner

No.7 [Ms Mohd. Ibrahim & Sons] was allotted 1 Food Stall on

Platform No.1, 2 Tea Stalls on Platform No. 2/3, 1 Tea Stall on

Platform No.4/5, 4Food Moving Trolley at Jabalpur Railway Station

by the Railway Administration. That the Petitioner Firm has been

doing its vending as per terms and condition of the agreement and


there is no complaint in the work of the petitioner. In fact the

petitioners were directed to deposit GST and it being paid as per

law. Now the Railway Administration by erroneously interpretating

the Judgment of this Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways v.

S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported

in 2016 [3] SCC 582 are threatening to evict the petitioner.

Similarly on 26.09.2001 the Petitioner No.4 [M/s Rafia Begum] has

been doing the catering business for long at Railway Station

Fatehpur. For the purpose of catering the Railway Administration

has been issuing license in favour of petitioner i.e. on 05.03.2002

and thereafter in respect of Refreshment Room and Trolleys at

Railway Station Fatehpur. Thereafter the license is being extended

from time to time. There are six partners of the Firm M/s Rafia

Begum who are working catering and vending business at the

Railway Station. Further the Petitioner No.6 was alloted the

Refreshment Tea Stall at Platform No.2/3 at Katni Railway Station

on 28.02.2002 and since then he is working satisfactorily. The

Railway Administration is obliged to renew the said license as per

direction dated 29.01.2016 of this Hon‟ble Court passed in the Civil

Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016. However the Railway Administration is

threatening to evict the Petitioner No.6. Further the Petitioner No.9

[M/s Syed Hussain Ahmed & Sons] is doing the catering

business at Railway Station Bareilly for the British period.

The Petitioner Firm was allotted 3 Food Trolleys at


Railway Station Bareilly. There has been no complaint

against the Firm. That the Petitioner Firm has been doing its

vending as per terms and condition of the agreement and there is

no complaint in the work of the petitioner. Now the Railway

Administration by erroneously interpretating the Judgment of this

Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry

Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016 [3] SCC

582 are threatening to evict the petitioner.

[D]. The Commercial Circular No.58 of 2000 dated 20.10.2000 was

issued containing the Catering Policy-2000 contained the general

guideline regarding improvement in the standards of

catering/vending services. The Railway Administration introduced

modified Catering Policy in 2005 under which all the catering

business of the Indian Railways was assigned to new Corporation

constituted by the Indian Railways being “Indian Railways Catering

and Tourism Corporation” (IRCTC). Due to change in policy and

transfer of entire job to the IRCTC no further agreements were

executed till finalization and implementation of the new schemes.

[E]. An agreement was executed between the partners to carry

out business of catering in the name and style of R & K Associates

w.e.f. 26.01.1996 [Petitioner No.10]. The Petitioner No.10 is doing

their business as per agreement. On 08.04.2008 the petitioner was

allotted Stall No.2 at Platform No.4/5 at Railway Station Pune and

after completing the formalities the license agreement was


executed between the Petitioner No.10 & respondent Authorities on

24.11.2008. Thereafter on 24.11.2010 the Railway Administration

executed a tripartite agreement by which the management of the

Stalls were taken over by the Sr. DCM Pune, w.e.f.24.11.2010.

After the first tenure the Railway Administration granted extension

of the license for another period of three years on 17.06.2013. The

petitioner Firm has only one Stall and under the Judgment of this

Hon‟ble Court in South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry

Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported in 2016 [3] SCC

582 the petitioner is entitled to be protected. However the Railway

Administration has directed the petitioner to dismantle the Stall

after the period is over.

[F]. That on 21.07.2010 a new Catering Policy-2010 was

introduced by the Railways. The express objective of the catering

policy 2010 was “(i) To provide hygienic, good quality,

affordable food to the travelling public by adopting best trade and

hospitality industry practices. (ii) The policy will have an

inclusive approach where from the least advantaged passenger to

the relatively affluent will be provided catering services in a socially

responsible manner which should meet all the social objectives of

the Government, including provisions of reservation as per

Government directives issued from time to time.” In the policy

there was provision for renewal of the licenses. The Catering

licensee raised an issue as to whether the licensee under Catering


Policy 2005 are entitled to the benefit of renewal under the

Catering Policy 2010 or not. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P.

answered in favour of the licensee on 12.09.2013.

[G]. The father of the petitioner No.3 herein gave GPA in favour of

the Petitioner No.3 on 27.04.2013 to run the catering business in

question in view of his old age. The Petitioner No.3 on 16.02.2016

submitted the representation to the Railway Administration

requesting for substitution of the name of the petitioner no.3 on the

place of deceased father [the original petitioner]. The true and

correct copy of the GPA dated 27.04.2013 given by the Father of

the Petitioner No.3 is enclosed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE-P-1 [Page No. to ]

[H]. The petitioner No. 2, 3 & 4 filed Writ Petition before this

Hon‟ble Court assailing the action of the Railway Administration in

eliminating the small caterers like petitioners who are doing their

business for last 40-years is in violation of their Fundamental

Rights. It is was stated that if under the said Policy the Railway

Administration desires to establish more catering units they may

establish the same and may award as per the terms and conditions

of the Catering Policy without eliminating the existing caterers who

are working at respective Railway Stations for several decades

under the control of Railway Administration itself and meet all the

standards as stipulated in the Catering Policy. The true and correct

copy of the memo of W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015 dated 19.03.2015


filed before this Hon‟ble Court is enclosed herewith and marked as


[I]. The said W.P. No.177/2015 was listed before this Hon‟ble

Court on 17.04.2015 and after hearing their Lordships were pleased

to pass following order:-

“Issue notice. Application seeking exemption from filing

official translation is allowed. Until further orders, the interim

stay of the Notification dated 10th March, 2015. Tag with

SLP(C) NO.29714 of 2013.”

The true and correct copy of the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by

this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015 is enclosed herewith

and marked as ANNEXURE-P-3 [Page No. to ]

[J]. Even after stay order dated 17.04.2015 the respondent tried

to evict the Petitioner No.3 by reviving the old bid i.e. Tender Notice

NIT:V-20-CD-GMU-MB Div-1-14 C and Bid Notice No.01/2014/Ctg.

Dated 23.12.2014 issued by Northern Railway. Consequently the

petitioner file I.A. No.2 & 3 of 2015, in the W.P.No.177/2015 for

stay. After hearing their Lordships were pleased to allow the said

application. The true and correct copy of the order dated 27.07.2015

passed by this Hon‟ble Court in I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2015 in W.P. [C]

No.177 of 2015 is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-

4 [Page No. to ]


[K]. That the father of the Petitioner No.3 died during pendency of

the Writ petition, therefore an application for substation of legal

heirs was filed, which was allowed on 21.01.2016. The true and

correct copy of the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by this Hon‟ble

Court in I.A.No.4 & 5 of 2015 in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015 is enclosed

herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-5 [Page No. to ]

[L]. 29.01.2016: The Railway Administration aggrieved by the

order of the Hon'ble High Court preferred SLP wherein leave was

granted. However the appeal was disposed of by affirming the order

of High Court. In the said judgment [i.e. South Central Railways v.

S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., reported

in 2016 [3] SCC 582] this Hon‟ble Court held as under:-

“22. The case of the appellants, in a nutshell, is that the

Railways had the right to enact the Catering Policy, 2010. In

terms of the said Policy, only such licensees who were

granted licence under the 2010 Policy were entitled to get

their contracts renewed and the same benefit could not be

extended to those licensees who were granted licence prior

to the 2010 Policy. According to the Catering Policy, 2010,

no provision is made for the renewal of the existing catering

units on the expiry of the term of the licences. The renewal

of the licences of the licensee under Para 16 of the Policy

would apply only to licensees who were allotted licences

under the Catering Policy, 2010. The appellants have further

submitted that the renewals of the licences by the Zonal

Railways up to 2013 was only meant to operate as a


temporary arrangement till the bidding and allocation

process was finally completed.

23. We are unable to agree with the contention advanced

on behalf of the appellants. The Railway Board issued

Commercial Circular No. 37 dated 9-8-2010, which contained

the following instructions:

“1. Transfer of licence units: * * *

(d) Zonal Railways should renew all agreements which have

expired or are due for expiry in the next 6 months by giving

an extension, subject to a maximum extension of six months

from the date of issue of the Catering Policy, 2010.”

This circular clarifies that the renewal of the licence is

required to be granted to all the existing licensees of the

Minor Units as per Paras 16 and 17 of the Catering Policy,

2010. It also becomes clear that the existing licensees need

not be included in the tender process. XXXXXXXXX

27. It is the duty of every welfare State to generate

employment. Presently, millions of youth of the country are

unemployed. The right to livelihood is a part of right to life,

as has been held in Olga Tellis. A vast majority of the

unemployed population of the country then, is susceptible to

being exploited by the rich and the capitalists. It is the duty

of the State, acting through its instrumentalities to ensure

that no person in a vulnerable position is exploited. In

People‟s Union for Democratic Rights v. Union of India,

Bhagwati, J. lamenting on the exploitation of the weak and

the powerless held as under: (SCC pp. 240-41, para 2)

XXXXXXX


32. Keeping in view the evolving concept of social justice,

we allow the members of the respondents who are the

licensees to continue their petty business, especially in the

absence of employment potentiality in the country on

account of non-governance and non-implementation of the

constitutional philosophy of an egalitarian society, which

provides the opportunity to all individuals to lead a life of

dignity. The right to life with dignity has been interpreted to

be a part of right to life by this Court in Francis Coralie Mullin

v. UT of Delhi, as under: XXXXX

33. Therefore, we have to hold that the provisions of the

Catering Policy, 2010 are applicable to the respondents

concerned. The action of the Railways in not granting

renewals of the licences to the members of the respondents

is arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and discriminatory, and the

same cannot be allowed to sustain in law.

34. For the reasons stated supra, this Court cannot interfere

with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.

The civil appeals are dismissed. The order dated 11-4-2014

granting stay of the impugned order shall stand vacated.

We, however, make it clear that only those licensees may be

eligible for renewal of their licences who can declare on

affidavit that they do not have the licence of more than one

shop or kiosk in their name or benami licence at the railway

stations with periodical reasonable increase of licence fee. All

pending applications are disposed of.

The true and correct copy of the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by

this Hon‟ble Court in Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016 is enclosed



[M]. The Petitioner No.3 submitted the representation to the

Railway Administration requesting for substitution of the name of

the petitioner no.3 on the place of deceased father [the original

petitioner]. The true and correct copy representation dated

16.02.2016 given by the Petitioner No.3 addressed to Railway

Administration is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-

7 [Page No. to ]

[N]. The Writ Petition [C] No.177 of 2015 was allowed by holding

that “The issue on renewal of licence in principle, is covered by the

decision of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016 decided

on 29th January, 2016. Therefore, these writ petitions are disposed

of with direction to the Railways to take the required further steps in

the light of the judgment dated 29th January, 2016, within six

weeks.” The true and correct copy of the order dated 29.03.2016

passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015 is enclosed


[O]. That the Railway Administration in view of the Circular

No.22/2017 directed the Petitioner No.2 to submit an affidavit that

he has not more than one unit and he would be ready to surrender

the rest of the Unit by giving choice to retain one by indicating the

Unit. The true and correct copy of the letter dated 21.04.2016

issued by Sr. Division Commercial Manager NR addressed to all


Station Superintendent is enclosed herewith and marked as


[P]. 13.07.2016: That after the decision of this Hon'ble Court the

Railway Administration issued order on 13.07.2016 for renewal of

catering licences from time to time and the last general renewal was

issued on 24.01.2017 stating that the existing static units may be

granted extension till 20.07.2017. Thereafter the Railway

Administration issued Catering Policy 2017 vide Commercial Circular

No.20 of 2017 dated 27.02.2017.

[Q]. Since the catering policy 2017 ignored the decision of this

Hon‟ble Court, therefore a Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 was

issued on 15/03/2017 by making provision for renewal of the

licences as per directions of this Hon‟ble court in C.A. No.618-620 of

2016. In the said circular it was stipulated that only those units

would be eligible for renewal of their licences who declare on

affidavit that they don‟t have license for more than one refreshment

room at B and below categories stations or one Catering Stall or one

Trolley or one Khoncha/Dallah /Wheel Barrow/Hand

Barrow/Tray/Table /Tea Balta etc. It was further stated that

licensee, which has already been renewed for Refreshment Rooms,

Catering Stall or one Trolley or one Khoncha/ Dallah/Wheel Barrow/

Hand Barrow/Tray/Table /Tea Balta, shall not be eligible to

participate in the tender process at any station during the currency


of the renewed license. It was further stated that one Catering Stall

or one Trolley or one Khoncha/ Dallah/Wheel Barrow/ Hand

Barrow/Tray/Table/Tea Balta shall be treated as one shop or one

unit. If the licensee holds more than one unit under the single or

multiple licenses, he or she shall forgo all other units except the

units which he or she wishes to be renewed. The true & correct

copy of the Commercial Circular No.22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017

issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of

India, Rail Bhavan, is enclosed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE-P-10. [Page No. to ]

[R]. In the light of above mentioned commercial circular issued by

the Railway Board, the Senior Divisional Commercial Managers

issued letter dated 21.03.2017 addressed to all Stations

Superintendent directing them to obtain affidavit from the licensees

to the effect that they don‟t possess more than one Stall/Unit. It was

further directed that they may give their option as to which stall

they would prefer to retain. Thereafter all Senior Divisional

Commercial Managers issued letter dated 22.03.2017 addressed to

all Stations Superintendent directing them to obtain affidavit from

the licensees to the effect that they don‟t possess more than one

Stall/Unit. An affidavit pro forma was also enclosed along with the

said letter which was to be filled up by all the licensees on a

Revenue Stamp of Rs.100. The true & correct copy of PROFARMA


affidavit, is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P- 11.

[Page No. to ]

[S]. Accordingly the Petitioner No. 2 submitted the affidavit stating

that the petitioner has got only one unit and he may be allowed to

continue as per direction of this Hon‟ble Court. The true and correct

copy of the affidavit dated 22.04.2016 executed by the Petitioner

No.2 is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P- 12 [Page

No. to ]

[T]. It is submitted that since the vendors are selling the eatables on

the platform therefore they are mandated to obtain license under the

Food Safety and Standards Act 2006. Accordingly the vendor‟s obtained

license from time to time under the said Act. It is further submitted that

for the purpose of selling the eatables on the platform by the vendors it is

mandatory to passes medical certificate issued by the Railway

Administration in favour of each and every vendor. These “venders

medical form” has dual purpose i.e. it works as an identity card and as a

medical certificate also. In response to the letter dated 21.03.2017

Vendors Co-operative Society and the Firms informed the

respondent that the Circular No.22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 does

not apply to the petitioner‟s vendors Co-operative Society /Firms and

the individual members have been given responsibility of the units

and the petitioner is a corporate body and the unit does not belong

to any one. Thus the judgment of this Hon‟ble Court does not apply


to the petitioners. That the Railway Administration in many cases did

not accept the affidavits of the vendors by stating that only one

affidavit has to be filed by the person who signed the license

agreement. Aggrieved by the action of the Railways some vendors/

Vendor Co-operative Society filed Writ Petition before this Hon‟ble

Court being W.P. [C] No.373 of 2017 and after hearing their

Lordships were pleased to issue notice and directed maintain status

quo in the matter. The true & correct copy of order dated

03.07.2017 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.373 of 2017

is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P- 13. [Page No.

to ]

[U]. The Petitioner No.2 was threatened by the Railway

Administration vide letter dated 22.08.2017 by stating that the

Refreshment Room at A-1 Station has been transferred to IRCTC

and therefore the petitioner would have to vacate the premises. The

Petitioner No.2 replied to the Railway Administration stating that the

petitioner have succeeded in the writ petition No.177 of 2015 and

therefore he could not be evicted from the Refreshment Room by

violating his fundamental rights. The true and correct copy of the

reply dated 28.09.2016 given by the Petitioner No.2 to the Railway

Administration is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-

14 [Page No. to ]


[V]. M/s Rafia Begam was directed to deposit the License fee for

the period of 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018, vide letter dated

11.01.2018. The true and correct copy of the letter dated

11.01.2018 issued by Station Superintendent demanding the license

fee for the period from 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 is enclosed


[W]. M/s Rafia Begam deposited the License fee for the period of

01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 on 12.01.2018. The true and correct copy

of the deposit receipt dated 12.01.2018 for the period from

01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 is enclosed herewith and marked as


[X]. In the light the above mentioned facts and circumstances it is

submitted that the direction of Railway Administration to submit

affidavit stating that “he or she owns only one unit” is arbitrary and

violative of the petitioners fundamental right and the direction in

question is not applicable to Indian Railway Catering Co-operative

Society/ Partnership Firms for obvious reason that the members

thereof jointly form a body corporate and they run the Co-operative

Society/ Firms jointly but by individual efforts and the members are

poor section of the society and need protection in consonance with

the principle laid down under the Directives Principles of State

Policy. That the provisions of Articles 38, 39, 41 read with Article

14, 19(1)(g) and 21 makes above mentioned condition of allotment


and renewal of only one Trolly/Stall /Khoncha to the Indian Railway

Catering Co-operative Society/ Partnership Firms illegal and violative

to the basic spirit of the Constitution of India. It view of these

constitutional and factual position the petitioners submit that

direction as contained in Para 34 of the judgment reported in 2016

[3] SCC 582] “i.e. only those licensees may be eligible for renewal of

their licences who can declare on affidavit that they do not have the

licence of more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami

licence at the railway stations with periodical reasonable increase of

licence fee.” are not applicable to the petitioners because the

trolleys and installs that are given to the Indian Railway Catering Co-

operative Society/ Partnership Firms which consist of its member

who are poor vendors and earn their livelihood by selling the tables

on the railway platform and in the trains and they don‟t own any

thing individually.

[5]. The petitioners are approaching this Hon'ble Court on

following among other grounds:-

GROUNDS

[I]. Because the action of respondents in directing the Vendors

Co-operative Society/ Partnership Firms to choose only one

Unit/Trolley/ Khoncha/Kiosk for entire society members and

rest of the Unit/Trolley/Khoncha/Kiosk would be surrendered

to the Railways is arbitrary and violative of the fundamental


rights of the petitioners. It is submitted that respondents

contend that this direction is issued in fulfillment of the

direction of this Hon'ble Court in the judgment reported in

2016 [3] SCC 582], but this is not correct appreciation of the

said judgment. It is humbly submitted that in the said

judgment this Hon'ble Court took a pragmatic view and

directed that only one unit will be renew in respect of one

individual vendor, with an object to eliminate the

concentration in one hand. However said direction is not

applicable to Vendor‟s Co-operative Society for obvious

reason that the trolleys/Shops are given to the Co-operative

Society which consist of its member who don‟t own any thing

individually.

[II]. Because the members/partners of Vendors Co-operative

Society/Partnership Firm jointly form a body corporate and

they run the Co-operative Society/ Partnership Firm jointly

but by individual efforts and the members are poor section of


principle laid down under the Directives Principles of State

Policy as contained in Chapter–IV of the Constitution of India.

It is submitted that in view of the provisions of Article 14,

19(1)(g) and 21 the action of respondent regarding renewal

of only one Trolly/Stall/Khoncha to the Vendor‟s Co-operative


Society is illegal and violative to the basic spirit of the


[III]. Because the action of the respondent is arbitrary by which

the Railways Administration is depriving the petitioner from

their livelihood by taking away the licensed Unit/Trolley/

shop/kiosk in the garb of policy of renewal, stated to be

framed in the light of the decision of this Hon'ble Court

reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582]. It is submitted that

respondents vide letter dated 15.03.2017 directed all the

licensees to file an affidavit, for the purpose of renewal of the

license, stating that they don‟t posses more than one Unit at

the Railway premises. Thereafter a letter dated 22.03.2017

and 27.03.2017 was written by respondent addressed to all

the Station Superintendents of the Division to obtain an

affidavit from all the licensee on the profarma affidavit to the

effect that the licensee in question does not possess more

than one unit/shop at the Railway Station. The petitioner

Vendors Co-operative Society/ Partnership Firm informed the

Railway Administration that such condition would not be

applicable to petitioners because the trolleys/ Shops & stalls

are given to the Co-operative Society/Partnership Firm which

consist of its member who are poor vendors and they don‟t

own any thing individually. However the prayer of the

petitioner was rejected and the petitioners have been


directed to submit the one affidavit with observation that only

one Shop or Trolley or kiosk would be given.

[IV]. Because the direction as contained in Para 34 of the


licensees may be eligible for renewal of their licences who can

declare on affidavit that they do not have the licence of more

than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami licence at the

railway stations with periodical reasonable increase of licence

fee.” are not applicable to the petitioners because the

trolleys/Shops are given to the Co-operative Society/

Partnership Firm which consist of its member who don‟t own

any thing individually. The petitioners are approaching this

Hon'ble Court in view of the fact that the respondents are

relying on the decision of this Hon'ble Court and thereby

violating the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

[V]. Because the direction of Railway Administration to submit

affidavit stating that “he or she owns only one unit” is not

applicable to Vendor‟s Co-operative Society/Partnership Firm

for obvious reason that the members thereof jointly form a

body corporate and they run the Co-operative Society/ Firm

jointly but by individual efforts and the members are poor

section of the society and need protection in consonance with


the principle laid down under the Directives Principles of State


[VI]. Because Article-38 of the Constitution of India mandates that

the State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by

securing, protecting as effectively as it may a social order in

which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all

the institutions of the national life. Similarly clause -2 of the

Article 38 provides that State shall in particular strive to

minimize inequalities in income not only among individuals

but also among groups of the people engaged in different

vocations.

[VII]. Because Article 39 provides that the State shall direct its

policies towards securing that the citizens have the right to

earn and adequate means to livelihood; that the ownership

and control of material resources of the community are so

distributed as to best to subserve common good; that the

operation of economic system does not result in

concentration of wealth and means of protection to the

common detriments.

[VIII]. Because Article-41 further provides that State shall within its

economic capacities make effective provisions for securing

the right to work and to public assistance in cases of

unemployment, old age sickness and disablement, and in


other cases of undeserved want. The provisions of above

mentioned Articles read with Article 14, Article 19(1)(g) and

21 makes above mentioned condition of allotment and

renewal of only one Trolly/Stall/Khoncha to the Vendor‟s Co-

operative Society/Partnership Firm illegal and violative to the

basic spirit of the Constitution of India.

[IX]. Because the petitioners are Vender‟s Cooperative Society

registered under the Rajasthan Co-operative Societies Act

having aim and object to support its member and to carry out

retail business of consumer goods by its members for their

subsistence in the Railway premises and they are aggrieved

by the action of Respondent in directing the Vendors Co-

operative Society/Partnership Firm to choose only one

Unit/Trolley/Khoncha /Kiosk for entire society members stated

to be in fulfillment of the direction of this Hon'ble Court in the

judgment reported in 2016 [3] SCC 582].

[X]. Because the judgment this Hon'ble Court reported in 2016 [3]

SCC 582] took a pragmatic view and directed that only one

unit will be renew in respect of one individual vendor, with an

object to eliminate the concentration in one hand. However

said direction is not applicable to Vendor‟s Co-operative

Society for obvious reason that the trolleys/Shops are given

to the Co-operative Society/Partnership Firm which consist of


its member/partners who don‟t own any thing individually and

they run the Co-operative Society/Partnership Firms jointly

but by individual efforts and the members are poor section of


principle laid down under the Directives Principles of State


P R A Y E R

In these premises it is most respectfully prayed that this

Hon‟ble Court be pleased to:-

[A]. Allow the present writ petition by issuing writ of mandamus

or any appropriate writ or direction or an order clarifying and

directing that the direction as contained in Para 34 of the


licensees may be eligible for renewal of their licences who

can declare on affidavit that they do not have the licence of

more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami licence

at the Railway Stations with periodical reasonable increase of

licence fee.” are not applicable to the petitioners; AND/OR

[B]. Allow the present writ petition by issuing writ of mandamus

or any other writ or direction restraining the respondents

Railway Administration from interfering with the business of

the petitioners which is a Vendors Cooperative Society, which

needs special permits; AND/OR


[C]. Allow the present writ petition by declaring that the action of

the respondents is violative of the provisions of Article 14,

19(1)(g) and 21 read with provisions of the Directive

Principles of State Policy and the petitioners are entitled to

renewal of their licences in respect of entire unit as held by

them in the present agreement;AND/OR

[D]. Allow the present writ petition by issuing writ of mandamus or

any other writ or direction by quashing the letter/ order dated

15.03.2017 [Annexure-P-10] in order to substantial Justice

between the parties; AND/OR

[E]. Pass such other order or orders and d irections as

this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper in the

facts and circumstances of the case as also in the

interest of justice,

FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER

AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

S. WASIM A. QADRI, ADVOCATE

314-C.K.Daphtary Block, New Lawyers Chambers, [L.R.SINGH] Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record NEW DELHI. for the Petitioner DRAWN ON: 10.01.2018 FILED ON : 16.02.2018.





IN THE MATTER OF:

Chai Wala Welfare Association (Regd.) & Ors. ….Petitioners

Versus

Union of India & Ors ...Respondents

CERTIFICATE

Certified that the Writ Petition is confined only to the

pleadings before the Court, whose order is challenged and the other

documents relied upon in those proceedings. No additional facts,

documents or grounds have been taken therein or relied upon in the

Writ Petition. It is further certified that the copies of the documents/

annexures attached to the Writ Petition are necessary to answer the

question of law raised in the petition or to make out grounds urged

in the Writ Petition for consideration of this Hon'ble Court. This

certificate is given on the basis of the instructions given by the

petitioner/person authorized by the petitioner, whose affidavit is

filed in support of the Writ Petition.

[L.R. SINGH] Advocate-on-Record

for the Petitioner

New Delhi Dated: 16.02.2018




WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.___________ OF 2018

IN THE MATTER OF:


Versus

Union of India & Ors ...Respondents AFFIDAVIT

I, Satyendra Nath Pandey, son of Shiv Gopal Pandey, aged

about 65 years, Gandhi Vihar, Line Par, Distt. Hapur, U.P..,

presently at New Delhi do hereby solemnly state and declare as

under:

1. That I am the President of Chai Wala Welfare Association

(Regd.), Gandhi Vihar, Line Par, Distt. Hapur, U.P.

[Petitioner No. 1] and as such, I am conversant with the

facts and circumstances of the case and hence, I am

competent to swear the instant affidavit.

2. That the copy of the accompanying Writ Petition [paras 1-

32] [Pages 1 to 5 ], List of Dates [B- W ], I.As and has

been read over and explained to me in vernacular and

having understood the contents thereof, I say that the

facts stated therein are true to my knowledge.

3. That the Writ Petition Paper book contains total 117 pages.


5. That the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my

knowledge and belief and based on record. No part of the same is

false and noting material has been concealed therefrom.

DEPONENT

VERIFICATION:

I, the abovenamed deponent do hereby verify that the facts

stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge and belief

based on record. No part of the same is false and nothing material

has been concealed therefrom.

Verified at New Delhi on this the day of January 2018.

DEPONENT


ANNEXURE P-1

GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY

I Abdul Maanan Khan son of Late Abdul Hai Khan R/o 47 station

road Pratapgarh (U.P) .is Licensee of railway catering of Pratapgrah

and Jaunpur .At present I am more than 80 years old. Due to bad

health and old age I am facing difficulties in working. My son Mohd

Imran Khan is helping me in my work from a long time. I am very

happy with his ability, honestyand integrity. I am authorizing him to

deal all work related to catering license.

It is my wish that the name of my son be entered into catering

license of Pratapgrah and Jaunpur.

I have executed this GPA in full state of mind and in conscious

manner, so that it remains record and for future use.

S/d

Dated 26.04.2013 Abdul Maanan Khan

Signature of witnesses

1. S/d (Parveen )

2. S/d (Talat Jahan)

//TRUE COPY//


ANNEXURE P-2



WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 177 OF 2015


IN THE MATTER OF:

1. Khan Paan Vendors Welfare Association [Regd] Through Secretary, Mr. Gajraj Tiyagi

Gandhi Vihar, Line Par, Distt. Hapur, U.P. ……Petitioner

2. S.G.Satendar Nath Pandey

R.R. Room, Vending & Train side Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Hardoi, U.P. ……Petitioner

3. Raj & Co. Through Partner Mr. S.K. Jain R.R. Room & Train side Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Shahjahanpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

4. Surendra & Co. Through Partner Mr. Surender Singh R.R. Room, Vending & Train side Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Laksar, Uttrakhand ……Petitioner

5. Bhairav Prasad Sharma R.R. Room & Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Aligarh, U.P. ……Petitioner

6. Pal & Co. Through Manger Mr. I.P. Singh Vending Licensee, Railway Station, Dehradun, Uttrakhand ……Petitioner

7. M/s Tilak Rana Ramesh Kumar Through Manger Tilak Rana Vending & Train side Vending, Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Haridwar, Uttrakhand ……Petitioner


8. Khan Chand & Sons Through Manger Mr. Dinesh Garg Vending Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Haridwar, Uttrakhand ……Petitioner

9. Raqia Begum. R.R. Room Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Fahtehpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

10. A. M. Khan

R.R. Room & Vending Licensee, Railway Platform No. 1, Pratapgarh & Jaunpur, U.P. ……Petitioner

//VERSUS//

1. Union of India Through the Secretary Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, New Delhi Respondent

2. Division Railway Manager

Northern Railway, Moradabad, U.P. Respondent

3. Division Railway Manager North Central Railway, Allahabad, U.P. Respondent

4. Division Railway Manager

Northern Railway, Lucknow, U.P. All contesting Respondent

PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ENFORCEMENT

OF THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS ENSHRINED

UNDER ARTICLES 14, 19 [1] [G] AND 21 OF THE

CONSTITUTION OF INDIA BY ISSUING WRIT

CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE

WRIT FOR QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER

DATED 18.09.2013 AND FOR MANDAMUS

COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW


THE PETITIONER TO CONDUCT THEIR BUSINESS

AS PER LAW WITHOUT ANY ILLEGAL FATTER.

To






[1]. That the Petitioners are preferring the present Writ Petition

under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement of their

Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 [1] [g] and 21 of

the Constitution of India and seeking the enforcement of their

fundamental right to earn their livelihood. On the identical issue the

Special Leave Petition [C] No.29714 of 2013; Special Leave Petition

[C] No.17358 of 2014 and the Writ Petition [C] No.848 of 2014 is

pending consideration of this Hon‟ble Court. The petitioners are poor

vendors running their vending business on the railway stations for

more than 40-years. The petitioners have not only got a name in

their vending business by their dedicated service but they have

created goodwill in their respective railway stations and by this

business they are maintaining their family and providing two time

meals to their families.

It is further submitted that since the Hon‟ble High Court of

Allahabad has taken a view on the issue against which the above

mentioned SLP has already filed and is pending consideration of this

Hon‟ble Court, therefore approaching the Hon‟ble High Court on


same issue would be a futile exercise; therefore the petitioners are

approaching this Hon‟ble Court under Article 32 of the Constitution

of India for redressal of their grievances on account of violation of

their Fundamental Right enshrined U/A 14, 19 [1] [G] and 21 of the


[2]. That the Petitioner No.2 to 10 are member of petitioner No. 1

[Association] and they are being represented by its proprietor/

manager/partner are citizens of India and are entitled to invoke the

remedy under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. Further the

petitioner No.1 is a registered Association [Registration No.786] of

the Railway Venders and is fighting for the cause of the Railway

Venders. The Respondents are State within the meaning of Article

12 of the Constitution of India and they are amenable to the

jurisdiction of this Hon‟ble Court.

[3]. That the petitioners have not filed any other petition or similar

petition before this Hon‟ble Court or any other court or authorities

seeking the similar or identical relief.

[4]. Briefly stated the facts of the case giving rise to filing of the

present petition are as under:-

[A]. That the Petitioner No.1 to Petitioner No.11 and their families

are associated with catering services at respective Railway Station

for last several decades. This is their second generation which is

depending upon the catering business for their livelihood. It is

submitted that the Policy of the Railway Administration has been to

provide catering services to least advantaged passenger in a socially


responsible manner. The petitioners have not only got a name in

their vending business by their dedicated service but they have

created goodwill in their respective Railway Stations and by this

business they are maintaining their family and providing two time

meals to their families. It is submitted that all the other petitioners

are operating their railway catering to the satisfaction of the Railway

authorities. The true and correct copy of the license fee deposited

by the petitioners as per demand of the Railway Administration for

the period up-to 2015 is enclosed herewith and marked as

ANNEXURE-P-1 [Page No. 28 to 36 ]

[B]. The Railway Administration to streamline the catering

business has been issuing catering policy from time to time. The

Indian Railway is the main public transportation system in the

country and its main business is carriage of goods and passengers

and catering is an ancillary subject. The main object of catering

policy has been to provide hygienic, good quality, affordable and

cheap food to the travelling public and this business of catering has

never been treated as source of income of the Indian Railways. The

then Railway Minister declared the Catering Policy keeping in view

the demand of the public so as to regulate the business of catering

in Railways in transparent manner and accordingly Catering Policy-

1992 was issued vide Railway Board Letter No.91/TG.III/600/15

dated 06.01.1992.


[C]. The Commercial Circular No.15 of 1999 was issued regarding

tariff of standard meal, tea, coffee etc. By this circular the price of

standard item was sought to be regulated. The true and correct

copy of the Commercial Circular No.15 dated 24.06.1999 issued by

Railway Board is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-

2. [Page No. 37 to 43 ]

[D]. The Commercial Circular No.58 of 2000 was issued containing

the Catering Policy-2000 especially to bring transparency and

competitiveness in catering contract of major units. The new Policy

contained the general guideline regarding improvement in the

standards of catering/vending services. The true and correct copy of

the Commercial Circular No.58 dated 20.10.2000 issued by Railway

Board is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-P-3. [Page

No. 44 ]

[E]. The Railway Minister in his Budget Speech 2004-05 had,

interalia, announced that with a view to increase the earnings from

Catering contracts, complete transparency and competitiveness will

be ensured in the award of contracts. Accordingly the Railway

Administration introduced some modification in the then Catering

Policy dated 05.10.2004 so as to introduce transparency in the

allotment of stalls.

[F]. That the Catering Policy 2004 was issued on 5th October

2004. During implementation of Catering Policy-2004, some practical

problems were faced and representations were received from


various corners to bring about changes in Catering Policy 2004.

Mainly, withdrawal of reservation in award of licences of small

catering units at „A‟ „B‟ and „C‟ category stations, problems of

underprivileged classes, problems of existing licensees, etc. due to

non-renewal of licences prescribed in Catering Policy 2004, were

highlighted in these representations. Therefore the Railway

Administration introduced modified Catering Policy in 2005 under

which all the catering business of the Indian Railways was assigned

to new Corporation constituted by the Indian Railways being “Indian

Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation” (IRCTC). Due to change

in policy and transfer of entire job to the IRCTC no further

agreements were executed till finalization and implementation of the

new schemes. However, several litigations were initiated due to

which Catering Policy 2005 could not be implemented and in view of

this no long term licenses were executed and it was decided by the

Railway Administration to grant/renew/extend the existing catering

licenses on yearly basis on the basis of license fee determined by

the authorities.

[G]. 21.07.2010: When the matter stood so, a new Catering Policy-

2010 was introduced by the Railways. The express objective of the

catering policy 2010 is as under:-

“(i) To provide hygienic, good quality, affordable food to

the travelling public by adopting best trade and hospitality

industry practices.


(ii) The policy will have an inclusive approach where from

the least advantaged passenger to the relatively affluent will

be provided catering services in a socially responsible manner

which should meet all the social objectives of the

Government, including provisions of reservation as per

Government directives issued from time to time.”

However the means to achieve said object as stipulated in the

Catering Policy-2010 is not in consonance with its objective and the

procedure stipulated therein defeats the very purpose of said

Catering Policy. For instance Clause 5(1) of the Policy says that the

Zonal Railway will prepare a blueprint for catering units at each

Railway Station keeping in view the growth of number of passengers

commuting/travelling by Railways and that is why the Zonal

Railways are mandated by Policy to prepare blueprint for catering

units at each Railway Station keeping in view the demand. However

the Railway Administration has failed in its duty and at present the

sole effort of the Railway Administration is to invite and encourage

multinational food chain, like Macdonald, Dominos, Pizzahut,

Cumsum, KFC, Haldiram etc.

It is submitted that the catering Policy 2010 on one hand strives to

achieve the standards and Clause-4 of the policy talks about the ISO

standards, which the petitioners are following without fail and to the

satisfaction of the authorities. But at the same time the Policy

stipulates in para 1.3 to eliminate small time operators which is just


in violation of the Part-III and IV of the Constitution of India. In

fact, most of the clauses of the Catering Policy 2010 are contrary to

the basic Policy object of the said Catering Policy-2010 as stipulated

in clause-1. The elimination of small caterers like petitioners who are

doing their business for last 40-years is in violation of their

Fundamental Rights. It is submitted that if under the said Policy the

Railway Administration desires to establish more catering units they

may establish the same and may award as per the terms and

conditions of the Catering Policy without eliminating the existing

caterers who are working at respective Railway Stations for several

decades under the control of Railway Administration itself and meet

all the standards as stipulated in the Catering Policy. In fact this

would encourage healthy competition between the Caterers which

were established on old pattern and the catering units which is

sought to be established now under the new Policy. It is submitted

that in this manner, the passengers will have more choice and

options would be served in better manner. The true and correct

copy of relevant extract of the Catering Policy 2010 dated

21.07.2010 is enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-4

[Page No. 45 to 52 ]

[H]. The Railway Administration issued Commercial Circular

No.37/2010 dated 09.08.2010 regarding furnishing of information as

to catering units to the Zonal Railways by IRCTC. The circular Clause

'D' stipulated that "Zonal Railways should renew all agreements


which are expiring or due to expire in next 6-months by giving an

extension subject to a maximum extension of 6-months from the

date of issue of Catering Policy 2010". Clause 2(iv) stipulated that

after taking over the units the Zonal Railway forthwith will assess

the license fee and the application for renewal will be considered

only after payment of dues and license fee. The true and correct

copy of Commercial circular No.37 of 2010 dated 09.08.2010 is

annexed herewith and being marked as ANNEXURE P-5 [Page No.

53 to 56 ].

[I]. As per the existing Catering Policy 2010 all the existing

licenses were being extended. The Office of Divisional Commercial

Manager addressed a letter to all the Station Superintendent to

Division like Moradabad, Bareilly, Rampur, Hapur, Chandoli,

Haridwar, Laxur, Roorkee, Dehradun, Sahajahanpuri, Amroha,

Hardoi etc. instructing that the license fee of six months in advance

after 20.05.2013 may be got deposited by the existing catering and

vending contractors and the same may be intimated so that the

extension of the existing contract may be done. The true and correct

copy of letter dated 04.09.2013 issued by office of Divisional

Commercial Manager addressed to Station Superintendents is

annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-6 [Page No. 57 ].

[J] That in another case similarly situated where the license of one

M/s. Sheikh Nanhey pertaining to Railway Station Bareilly was not

considered for extension and the unit was closed on 25.07.2012 who


approached the Hon‟ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court

rejected the prayer, therefore M/s. Sheikh Nanhey & Sons preferred

SLP Civil No.29714 of 2013 before this Hon'ble Court wherein this

Hon'ble Court vide order dated 04.10.2013, was pleased to issue

notice and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment. The true

and correct copy of order dated 04.10.2013 of this Hon'ble Court in SLP

[C] NO.29714 of 2013 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

P-7. [Page No. 58 ]

[K]. Another general Policy letter was issued by the office of Chief

Commercial Manager to all Station Superintendents regarding

extension of license for another period after payment of revised

license fee. The true and correct copy of letter dated 05.02.2014

issued by the office of Chief Commercial Manager to all Station

Superintendents is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

P-8 [Page No. 59 ].

[L]. It is submitted that during these period the Railway

Administration allotted catering license to several Multinational Food

Chains who bid for very high price for the same food which the

petitioners have been selling for several decades. It is submitted

that the petitioners have been selling the food comparatively at low

prices than the persons who have been working under the new

regime of tender-ship. The rates of food of Units under tender

belonging to multinationals and big food chains are different from

the rates of the petitioners‟ units. It is further submitted that in case


of accidents/ diversion of trains, the petitioners provide meal in

short notice at same rate whereas it is not done by these big Units.

The petitioners are enclosing a comparative chart of the rates

applicable to the vendors operating on old pattern and the rates

which is applicable to the vendors under the new regime which is

enclosed herewith and being marked as ANNEXURE P-9. [Page

No. 60 to 61 ].

[M]. The petitioners and the Association made several

representation to the concerned authorities regarding the grievances

against the Railway Administration and the raised voice against the

Catering Policy 2010 and demanded that there business may not be

forcibly closed in guise of new Catering Policy. Since the petitioners

are doing their catering business for several decades and if they are

protected there will not be much effect on the earning of the

Railways, whereas on the contrary the poor petitioners are

maintaining their two time meals for their families and if this

business is taken away from the petitioners it will be direct attack on

their right to life and liberty as enshrined under Article-21 of the

Constitution of India. The respondents are mandated to frame their

policies in consonance with the principle laid down under the

Directives Principles of State Policy under Chapter–IV of the

Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Article-38 of the

Constitution of India mandates that the State shall strive to promote

the welfare of the people by securing, protecting as effectively as it


may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political,

shall inform all the institutions of the national life. Similarly Part-II of

the Article 38 provides that State shall in particular strive to

minimize inequalities in income not only among individuals but also

among groups of the people engaged in different vocations. Article

39 provides that the State shall direct its policies towards securing

that the citizens have the right to earn and adequate means to

livelihood; that the ownership and control of material resources of

the community are so distributed as to best to subserve common

good; that the operation of economic system does not result in

concentration of wealth and means of protection to the common

detriments. Article-41 further provides that State shall within its

economic capacities make effective provisions for securing the right

to work and to public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age

sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want.

The provisions of above mentioned Articles read with Article 14,

Article 19(1)(g) and 21 makes the most of the provisions of the

Catering Policy 2010 as ultravires.

[N] Similarly in another case where the license of one Ayub Wali

Khan pertaining to Railway Station Hapur was not extended and the

unit was closed on 14.05.2013 who approached the Hon‟ble High

Court and the Hon'ble High Court rejected the Writ Petition,

whereupon Sri Ayub Wali Khan & Anr preferred SLP Civil No.17358

of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court, wherein this Hon'ble Court vide


order dated 21.07.2014, was pleased to issue notice and stayed the

operation of the impugned judgment. The true and correct copy of

order dated 21.07.2014 of this Hon'ble Court in SLP [C] NO.17358 of

2014 is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE P-10. [Page

No. 62 ].

[O]. Similarly in another case where the license of one M/s

Gurdeet Singh Jagjeet Singh pertaining to Railway Station

Bareilly was not cancelled arbitrarily and the catering unit was

closed on 18.09.2013, they filed Writ Petition before this Hon'ble

Court wherein this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 17.11.2014, was

pleased to issue notice and stayed the operation of the impugned

order. The true and correct copy of order dated 17.11.2014 of this

Hon'ble Court in WP [C] NO.848 of 2014 is annexed herewith and

marked as ANNEXURE P-11. [Page No. 63 ].

[P]. That the respondents under the Catering Policy 2010 issued

tender notice for Moradabad, Sahajhanpur and Hardoi Stations

which stipulates that the bidder must have annual turnover of Rs.50

lakh during each of preceding five years. Thus, basis criteria for

bidding itself is onerous and appears to be floated for big players

like Macdonald, Dominos, Pizza Hut and other foreign food chains.

The conditions stipulated in the tender for allotment of catering

units on the Railway Station are a direct attack on the Fundamental

Rights of the petitioners stipulated under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of

the Constitution of India. The true and correct copy of relevant


extract of the tender notice with due date on 10.03.2015 issued by

Northern Railway is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE

P-12 [Page No. 64 to 68 ].

[Q]. That the elimination of small caterers like petitioners who are

doing their business for last 40-years is in violation of their

Fundamental Rights. It is submitted that if under the said Policy the

Railway Administration desires to establish more catering units they

may establish the same and may award as per the terms and

conditions of the Catering Policy without eliminating the existing

caterers who are working at respective Railway Stations for several

decades under the control of Railway Administration itself and meet

all the standards as stipulated in the Catering Policy. In fact this

would encourage healthy competition between the Caterers which

were established on old pattern and the catering units which is

sought to be established now under the new Policy. It is submitted

that in this manner, the passengers will have more choice and

options would be served in better manner.

[5]. The petitioner is approaching this Hon'ble Court on following

among other grounds:-

GROUNDS

[I]. Because on the identical issue the Special Leave Petition [C]

No.29714 of 2013; Special Leave Petition [C] No.17358 of

2014 and the Writ Petition [C] No.848 of 2014 is pending


consideration of this Hon‟ble Court. The petitioners are poor

vendors running their vending business on the railway

stations for more than 40-years. The petitioners have not

only got a name in their vending business by their dedicated

service but they have created goodwill in their respective

Railway Stations and by this business they are maintaining

their family and providing two time meals to their families.

[II]. Because the Catering Policy stipulates in para 1.3 to eliminate

small time operators which is just in violation of the Part-III

and IV of the Constitution of India. In fact, most of the

clauses of the Catering Policy 2010 are contrary to the basic

Policy object of the said Catering Policy-2010 as stipulated in

clause-1. The elimination of small caterers like petitioners

who are doing their business for last 40-years is in violation of

their Fundamental Rights. It is submitted that if under the

said Policy the Railway Administration desires to establish

more catering units they may establish the same and may

award as per the terms and conditions of the Catering Policy

without eliminating the existing caterers who are working at

respective Railway Stations for several decades under the

control of Railway Administration itself and meet all the

standards as stipulated in the Catering Policy. In fact this

would encourage healthy competition between the Caterers

which were established on old pattern and the catering units


which is sought to be established now under the new Policy.

It is submitted that in this manner, the passengers will have

more choice and options would be served in better manner.

[III]. Because if the petitioners are protected there will not be

much effect on the earning of the Railways whereas on the

contrary the poor petitioners are maintaining their two time

meals for their families and if this business is taken away

from the petitioners it will be direct attack on their right to life

and liberty as enshrined under Article-21 of the Constitution

of India. It is submitted that the existing vendors who are

doing their business on the Railway Stations for more than 4-

decades perhaps could not meet the growing demand of

growing passengers and therefore the Catering Policy

stipulates the preparation of blueprint for Catering Units at

each station keeping in view the demand. The Policy says

that the Zonal railway should ensure that adequate facilities

are available for providing affordable food to passengers

before bringing any other type of outlets.

[IV]. Because clause 5(1) of the Policy says that the Zonal Railway

will prepare a blueprint for catering units at each Railway

Station. In this respect it may be noted that the Indian

Railways is the most popular convenient mode of public

transportation in the country and volume of the passengers is

increasing day by day. As per the record of the Railway


Administration, during the year 2010-11 it carried 7651

million passengers as against 7246 million in 2009-2010 and

thus registering volume growth of 5.6 percent. Similarly the

record shows volume growth of 4.7 percent during the year

2009-2010 as the Railways carried 7246 million passengers as

against 6920 million in 2008-09. The growth of number of

passengers commuting/travelling by Railways is increasing

every year and that is why the Zonal Railways are mandated

by Policy to prepare blueprint for catering units at each

Railway Station keeping in view the demand. It is submitted

that the Indian Railways gets 70 percent revenue from goods

carrier; 25 percent from passengers and rest 5 percent from

other resources including the business of vending. Thus the

catering business is not a revenue generating business for

Indian Railway but a pure service to its passengers. However

the Railway Administration has failed in its duty and at

present the sole effort of the Railway Administration is to

invite and encourage multinational food chain, like

Macdonald, Dominos, Pizzahut, Cumsum, KFC, Haldiram etc.

[V]. Because under the Catering Policy, the allotment of Catering

Units are mandated to be distributed through tendering

process. However under the tender process the emphasis of

the Railway Administration is on the higher license fee and

not upon the experience and the quality of traditional foods.


The tender notice which has recently been floated in the

month of January 2015 for Moradabad, Sahajhanpur and

Hardoi stations stipulates that the bidder must have annual

turnover of Rs. 50 lakh during each of preceding five years.

Thus, basis criteria for bidding itself is onerous and appears

to be floated for big players like Macdonald, Dominos, Pizza

Hut and other foreign food chains. The conditions stipulated

in the tender for allotment of catering units on the Railway

Station are a direct attack on the Fundamental Rights of the

petitioners stipulated under Article 19(1)(g) and 21 of the


[VI]. Because the petitioners have been selling the food

comparatively at low prices than the persons who have been

working under the new regime of tender-ship. The rates of

food of Units under tender belonging to multinationals and

big food chains are different from the rates of the petitioners‟

units. It is further submitted that in case of accidents/

diversion of trains, the petitioners provide meal in short

notice at same rate whereas it is not done by these big Units.

[VII]. Because the respondents are mandated to frame their policies

in consonance with the principle laid down under the

Directives Principles of State Policy under Chapter–IV of the

Constitution of India. It is submitted that the Article-38 of the

Constitution of India mandates that the State shall strive to


promote the welfare of the people by securing, protecting as

effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social,

economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the

national life. Similarly Part-II of the Article 38 provides that

State shall in particular strive to minimize inequalities in

income not only among individuals but also among groups of

the people engaged in different vocations. Article 39 provides

that the State shall direct its policies towards securing that

the citizens have the right to earn and adequate means to

livelihood; that the ownership and control of material

resources of the community are so distributed as to best to

subserve common good; that the operation of economic

system does not result in concentration of wealth and means

of protection to the common detriments. Article-41 further

provides that State shall within its economic capacities make

effective provisions for securing the right to work and to

public assistance in cases of unemployment, old age sickness

and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. The

provisions of above mentioned Articles read with Article 14,

Article 19(1)(g) and 21 makes the most of the provisions of

the Catering Policy 2010 as ultravires.

[VIII]. Because the object of the Catering Policy is in

consonance with Part III & IV of the Constitution but the way

it is sought to be achieved defeats the very object itself when


it provides for eliminating of small vendors and when it

stipulates turnover of Rs.50 lakhs and by ignoring the past

experience and their discontinuation unceremoniously. Thus

contrary to its object, the procedure adopted in the Catering

Policy eliminates the old caterers. There are no provisions in

the policy to protect the Caterers who meet all the standards

as stipulated in the policy itself because the Catering Policy-

2010 is fully infused with idea of bringing multinational food

chain companies.

[IX]. Because the Right to Life is one of the basic human Right and

not even the State has authority to violate that Right as held

by this Hon‟ble Court in case of State of A.P. Vs Challa

Ramkrishna Reddy, [2000 (5) SCC 712]. It is further

submitted that the Article 21 is declaration of deep faith and

belief in human life. In this pattern of guarantee woven in

Chapter-III of the Constitution personal liberty of human is at

root of Article 21 and each expression used in this Article

enhances human dignity and values. It lays down foundation

for society where rule of law have primary and not arbitrary

or capricious exercise of power as held by this Hon‟ble Court

in Kartar Singh Vs State of Punjab [1994 (3) SCC 569].

[X]. Because Article 21 is a shield against the arbitrary

encroachment by the Executive and to protect the rights of

individuals, liberal interpretation is given. Now, the protection


against the arbitrary deprivation of life no longer means mere

protection of death or physical injury but also an invasion of

the right to live with human dignity and including all facets of

life which would go to make a man‟s life meaningful and

worth living; as held by this Hon‟ble court in Francis Coralie

Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, [1981) 1 SCC

608]. Similarly in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.

State of Maharashtra, [2011) 1 SCC 694] this Hon‟ble Court

held that “64. The object of Article 21 is to prevent

encroachment upon personal liberty in any manner. Article 21

is repository of all human rights essential for a person or a

citizen. A fruitful and meaningful life presupposes life full of

dignity, honour, health and welfare. In the modern “Welfare

Philosophy”, it is for the State to ensure these essentials of

life to all its citizens, and if possible to non-citizens.”

[XI]. Because in case of National Legal Services Authority v. Union

of India, [2014) 5 SCC 438] this Hon‟ble Court while holding

that the Right to life means meaningful life and held that

“Article 21 is the heart and soul of the Indian Constitution,

which speaks of the rights to life and personal liberty. Right

to life is one of the basic fundamental rights and not even the

State has the authority to violate or take away that right.

Article 21 takes all those aspects of life which go to make a

person‟s life meaningful. Article 21 protects the dignity of


human life, one‟s personal autonomy, one‟s right to privacy,

etc. Right to dignity has been recognised to be an essential

part of the right to life and accrues to all persons on account

of being humans.”

[XII]. Because the Railway administration is free to bring such

caterers and put them in competition with the Caterers like

petitioners who are doing their business of catering for more

than 4-decades to the satisfaction of the customers. In view

of this, it is humbly submitted that the Catering Policy of 2010

may be interpreted in purposeful manner, so as to protect the

petitioners from deprivation of their livelihood. It is submitted

that the petitioners have not only got a name in their vending

business by their dedicated service but they have created

goodwill in their respective Railway Stations and by this

business they are maintaining their family and providing two

time meals to their families.

P R A Y E R



[A]. issue mandamus directing the railway administration not to

eliminate the petitioners herein [i.e. the existing caterers]

who are working for several decades on license basis on the

respective Railway Stations; AND/OR


[B]. issue any other writ or direction directing the railway

administration to prepare the blueprint of catering units at

each Station as stipulated in Clause-5 of the Catering Policy

2010 keeping in view the local requirements and establish

the new Catering Units, if so required by not disturbing or

eliminating existing Catering Units of petitioners which are

run as per the licenses issued by the Railway Administration

from time to time; AND/OR

[C]. direct the respondent to maintain the status-qua in respect of

the petitioners‟ units/Catering Units at present being run on

license basis granted by the Railway Administration; AND/OR

[D]. Pass such other order or orders and directions as






DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

S. WASIM A. QADRI, ADVOCATE 314-C.K.Daphtary Block, New Lawyers Chambers, [L.R.SINGH] Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record NEW DELHI. for the Petitioner DRAWN ON: 10.03.2015 FILED ON : 23.03.2015.

//TRUECOPY//


ANNEXURE P-9

Letter No. V-20-CD – Moradabad-2017 C Office of the Divisional Railway Manager

N.R. Moradabad

Dated 21.04.2016 All Station Superintendent N.R, Moradabad Division SUBJECT:- In connection of taking affidavit from Catering/

Vending Contractors.

In reference of letter of this office dated 22.03.2017 whereby

informed you that an affidavit is to be taken for implementation of

Hon‟ble Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 618-620/2016 [SLP(C) No.

9921-23/2014- Senior Divisional Manager & Ors. Vs. SCR, Caterers

Dry Fruit Juice stalls welfare Assn. & Ans. Delivered on 29.01.2016

and Head Office letter No. 85-AC/Catering Policy /2017 dated

16.03.2017 and Commercial Circular No. 22/2017.The format of

affidavit has been send to you. You may provide the affidavit from

every concerned contractor on 100/- stamp paper within one week

to this office for further proceeding.

Only Commercial Manager, N.R. Hardoi has provides affidavit of all

contractor of his beat but others are not given.

A joint letter of Catering/Vending licensee has sent to this office by

the Station superintendent, Hapur which states that a petition has

filed before the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in relation of said affidavit

and date of hearing 12.04.2017 is showing. If Hon‟ble High court

passes any stay order then received order copy and immediately


send to this office. Otherwise send affidavit to this office within 3

days and if any contractor does not give affidavit then its works may

be closed.

Sd/-

Senior Divisional Commercial Manager

N.R,Moradabad

Copy to:-

1. Deputy Chief Commercial Manager/Catering, NR, Head Office,

Borada House, New Delhi. Letter No. 85AC/Catering Policy/

2107 dated 16.03.2017

2. All Commercial Superintendent of Division for information and

confirmation of aforementioned work.

3. Commercial superintendent/ catering, NR, Moradabad for

information and necessary action.

//TRUE COPY//


ANNEXURE P-12

AFFIDAVIT

Sanjay Kumar Jain s/o Rajendra Kumar Jain R/o MohallaKhirniBagh

Near Union Bank of Indian district Shahjahanpur

Category-A furnishing this affidavit in my capacity as an

individual/partner of the firm M/s Raj and Company Railway

Refreshment room/Shanshajanpur/ Director of Body Corporate and

solemnly affirm, and states as under:-

2. That I/We hold as on date following catering licensee on Indian

railway

Type of units i.e.

refreshment room at

below category station of

catering stall or trollyor

khomocha or dallah or

chhabra or wheel barrow

or hand barrow or tray or

table or tea balta at any

railway station over

Indian railways is their

name or benami license.

Name of

station

FF No

and

details

of

units

hold

by

me/us

Details or

one

units/We

wish to

renew

Railway Refreshment

Room/SPN

Shahjahanpur 1 One I wish to

renew


I further declare that I have read commercial circular no. 22 of 2017

and [eligible]

I further declare that any false declaration by me/us on affidavit as

stated above shall be [eligible]

sd/-

Verification

Verified at Shahjahanpur on this 22th day of April 2017

Sd/- Deponent

Date:22-04-2017

Place: Shahjahanpur

Witnesses:-

1. Raj Kumar

2. Adesh Rathore


ANNEXURE P-14

M/S Raj and company Railway Refreshment Room

Shahjahanpur U.P.

Dated: 28.09.2017 To Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, Moradabad Division, Northern Railway, Moradabad. (U.P)

Subject: In reference of your letter No. V20-CD-Moradabad-C dated 22-08-2017

Sir,

With due respect it is submitted that in reference of above

mentioned letter the applicant has filed a petition W.P.(C) No.

177/2015 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court for renewal of catering

license and to prevent unauthorized interference in working.

After hearing the Railway Administration, The Hon‟ble Supreme

Court has admitted our petition on 29-03-2016 and the copy of

Order is attached herewith.

Thereafter a Review Petition (R.P.No.36031/2016) has filed by the

Railway Administration and it was dismissed by the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court on 17-11-2016 and the copy of order is attached herewith.

Therefore by respecting the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court the

Railway Administration may renew the Applicant‟s catering license

situated in Shahjahanpur (N.R). Because above mentioned letter

No contrary to the order of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court.


Respected sir the applicant is humbly prays that any action in

connection of that letter will be contempt of the Hon‟ble Supreme

Court. Therefore it is humbly request that kindly reject the latter

No.V20-CD-Moradabad-2016-C Dated 22.08.2017. Sir applicant

would like to draw your attention to the affidavit given by us on

dated 22-04-2017.This affidavit was given as per the order of The

Hon‟ble Supreme Court and as per your permission. Whereby

applicant gave affidavit for the renewal of Railway Refreshment

Room, Shahjahanpur, (N.R.).

Therefore, it is humbly prays to you that as per the order of the

Hon‟ble Supreme Court applicant‟s only source of livelihood is this

catering and for the renewal of catering kindly take liberal decision.

Please renew the Catering situated in Shahjahanpur. I wishes for

proper decision.

Applicant Sd/-

(Sanjay Kumar Jain) Attached:

1. Court order

2. Review Court order

28/09/2017

//TRUE COPY//


ANNEXURE-P-15

CBC/FTP 11.01.2018 Please deposit the license fees of M/S Rafiya Begum Tea Stall P/F

2/3 rupees 39258/- plus GST 7067/- total Rs. 46325/-for period of

01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 .

Sd/-

Station Superintendent

N.C.R, Fatehpur

//TRUE COPY//


ANNEXURE-P-16 Happy Journey

4361778

Rs.46325/- 20PVC0D04D 177A MR Catering License fee/ fine Name:- Raqia Begum Railway Station:- Fatehpur JN. DESAN:- A. No:-

Case of Date from 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018 Rs. Four six three two five only

Dated 12.01.2018

//TRUE COP//




I. A. No.________ of 2018

IN



IN THE MATTER OF:


//VERSUS//

Union of India & Ors ….Respondents

APPLICATION FOR STAY To






[1]. That the Petitioners herein today filed the accompanying Writ

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement

of their Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 [1] [g]

and 21 of the Constitution of India and seeking the enforcement of

their fundamental right to earn their livelihood, by challenging the




the Directive Principles of State Policy.


[2]. That the detailed facts and circumstances of the case has

been set out in the accompanying writ petition and the petitioners

crave leave of this Hon‟ble court to refer to and rely on the same

and the contents thereof may be treated as part and parcel of the

present application for sake of brevity and to avoid unnecessary

repetition.

[3]. That the petitioners have got prima-facie case in as much as

the direction contained in Para 34 of the judgment reported in 2016

[3] SCC 582] “i.e. only those licensees may be eligible for renewal of

their licences who can declare on affidavit that they do not have the

licence of more than one shop or kiosk in their name or benami

licence at the railway stations with periodical reasonable increase of

licence fee.” are not applicable to the petitioners because the

trolleys and installs that are given to the Co-operative Society which

consist of its member who are poor vendors and earn their livelihood

by selling the tables on the railway platform and in the trains and

they don‟t own any thing individually.

[4]. That if the interim relief is granted to the petitioner, no

prejudice will be caused to the other side and in the interest of

Justice status quo may be granted by restraining the respondent

from interfering with the catering business of the petitioners. It is

humble submitted that this Hon‟ble court was pleased to direct the

respondents not to interfere in the catering business of the

petitioner during pendency of the present writ petition.


P R A Y E R



[A]. Stay of the operation of letter/ order dated 15.03.2017

[Annexure-P-10] in order to substantial Justice between the

parties; AND/OR

[B] Direct all the respondents Railway Administration not to

interfere or close the Catering Units of the petitioners herein

[i.e. the Vendors Co-operative Societies]; AND/OR

[C]. Pass such other order or orders and directions as






DRAWN BY: FILED BY: S. WASIM A. QADRI, ADVOCATE 314-C.K.Daphtary Block, New Lawyers Chambers, [L.R.SINGH]

Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record NEW DELHI. for the Petitioner DRAWN ON: 10.01.2018 FILED ON : 16.02.2018




I. A. No.________/2018 IN



IN THE MATTER OF:


//VERSUS//


APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING OFFICIAL TRANSLATION

To The Hon‟ble Chief Justice of India and His Companion Justices of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India.



[1]. That the Petitioners herein today filed the accompanying Writ

Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India for enforcement

of their Fundamental Rights enshrined under Article 14, 19 [1] [g]

and 21 of the Constitution of India and seeking the enforcement of

their fundamental right to earn their livelihood, by challenging the




the Directive Principles of State Policy.

[2]. That the detailed facts and circumstances of the case has

been set out in the accompanying writ petition and the petitioners

crave leave of this Hon‟ble court to refer to and rely on the same


and the contents thereof may be treated as part and parcel of the

present application for sake of brevity and to avoid unnecessary

repetition.

[3]. That the present petition is very urgent therefore the

Annexures No. P-1,P-9 & P-14, which were in vernacular have been

got translated by the translator which is true and correct of the

original translation and same may be taken on record and the

petitioners may be exempted from getting appointed official

translator.

P R A Y E R In these premises it is most respectfully prayed that this


[A]. exempt the petitioner from filing true translated copies of

Annexure P-1,P-9 & P-14, along with the instant writ petition;

AND/OR

[B]. Pass such other order or orders and directions as




FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS THE PETITIONER AS IN DUTY BOUND SHALL EVER PRAY.

DRAWN BY: FILED BY:

S. WASIM A. QADRI, ADVOCATE 314-C.K.Daphtary Block, New Lawyers Chambers, [L.R.SINGH] Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record NEW DELHI. for the Petitioner FILED ON : 16.02.2018.






IN THE MATTER OF:


Versus


With

I.A. No. ___________ of 2018

Application for Stay

With I.A. No. of 2018

Application for exemption from filling official translation

P A P E R B O O K

[FOR INDEX, KINDLY SEE INSIDE]

ADVOCATE-ON RECORD FOR THE PETITIONER: L.R. SINGH DRAWN BY: S. WASIM A. QADRI, ADVOCATE


I N D E X

S No. Particulars of documents

Page no. of part to

which it belongs

Remarks

PART I

( Contents of

Paper Book)

PART II

(Contents

of File alone)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1. Listing Performa A A

2. Cover Page of Paper Book A1

3. Index of Record of Proceedings A2

4. Limitation Report prepared by the Registry

A3

5. Defect List A4-

6. Note Sheet NS-1 to

7. List of Dates B-W

8. Writ Petition with Affidavit 1-32

9. ANNEXURE P-1 The true and correct copy of the GPA dated 27.04.2013 given by the Father of the Petitioner No.3

33

10. ANNEXURE P-2 The true and correct copy of the

memo of W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015 filed before this Hon‟ble Court

34-57

11. ANNEXURE P-3 The true and correct copy of the order dated 17.04.2015 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015

58


12. ANNEXURE P-4 The true and correct copy of the order dated 27.07.2015 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in I.A.No.1 & 2 of 2015 in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015

59-60

13. ANNEXURE P-5 The true and correct copy of the order dated 21.01.2016 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in I.A.No.4 & 5 of 2015 in W.P. [C] No.177

of 2015

61

14. ANNEXURE P-6 The true and correct copy of the order dated 29.01.2016 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in Civil Appeal Nos.618-620 of 2016

62-96

15. ANNEXURE P-7 The true and correct copy representation dated 16.02.2016 given by the Petitioner No.3 addressed to Railway Administration

97-99

16. ANNEXURE P-8 The true and correct copy of the order dated 29.03.2016 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.177 of 2015

100-101

17. ANNEXURE P-9 The true and correct copy of the letter dated 21.04.2016 issued by Sr. Division Commercial Manager NR addressed to all

Station Superintendent

102-103

18. ANNEXURE P-10 The true & correct copy of the Commercial Circular No.22 of 2017 dated 15.03.2017 issued by the Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Government of India, Rail Bhavan,

104


19. ANNEXURE P-11 The true & correct copy of PROFARMA affidavit,

105

20. ANNEXURE P-12 The true and correct copy of the affidavit dated 22.04.2017 executed by the Petitioner No.2

106-107

21. ANNEXURE P-13 The true & correct copy of order dated 03.07.2017 passed by this Hon‟ble Court in W.P. [C] No.373

of 2017

108

22. ANNEXURE P-14 The true and correct copy of the reply dated 28.09.2017 given by the Petitioner No.2 to the Railway Administration

109-110

23. ANNEXURE P-15 The true and correct copy of the letter dated 11.01.2018 issued by Station Superintendent demanding the license fee for the period from 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018

111

24. ANNEXURE P-16 The true and correct copy of the deposit receipt dated 12.01.2018 for the period from 01.01.2018 to 30.06.2018

112

35. I.A. No. of 2018 Application for stay

113-115

36. I.A. No. of 2018

Application for exemption from filling official translation

116-117

37. F/M 118

38. V/A 119-128



Documents

SYNOPSIS - railnews.in