Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court directed that the petitioner be allowed to operate the General Minor Unit (GMU) catering stall at HAPA Railway Station, Platform Nos. 02-03, Stall No. 1, for an additional period of 7 months from 8 August 2025. This was subject to payment of license fees and submission of an undertaking to vacate the premises at the end of the extended period. The Court emphasized parity with previously granted reliefs in similar matters, noting: “This Court sees no reason to take a different view from the orders passed earlier.”
Facts
The petitioner was granted a catering stall license by the Divisional Railway Manager (Commercial), Western Railway-Rajkot Division, through a Letter of Award dated 17 September 2019. The stall, located under the cover shed on JAM end at HAPA Railway Station, was temporarily non-operational due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Indian Railways subsequently considered the COVID period as “dies non” (non-operative) and extended the license accordingly till 8 August 2025.
Relying on the precedent of similarly placed licensees, the petitioner sought a further 7-month extension, citing orders where such relief was granted. The petitioner expressed willingness to vacate the stall after the extended period and offered to file an undertaking on affidavit.
Issues
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to a 7-month extension of the license period beyond the “dies non” period?
- Whether the Delhi High Court has territorial jurisdiction over the dispute?
- Whether the Court can grant parity-based relief in line with previously adjudicated similar matters?
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner argued that the license term was adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, and similar cases had seen extensions granted by the Court. Reference was made to the case of Sadeek Ali v. Union of India, where a 7-month extension was granted, and other orders including Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India and Shri Kishori Lal v. Union of India. The petitioner emphasized the need for parity and fairness, affirming readiness to vacate the stall post the extended term, upon payment of the applicable license fees.
It was also submitted that the jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court was not in question since the Indian Railways’ catering policy is centrally administered and uniform nationwide, and the Railway Board is headquartered in Delhi.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents, represented by the Union of India, primarily contested the jurisdiction and policy-based claims. However, upon issuance of notice and after hearing arguments, no specific objection to the extension was sustained, especially in light of the precedents cited by the petitioner and the uniformity in the application of Railway policies.
Analysis of the Law
The Court relied on previous decisions including the judgment dated 30 May 2024 in Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India, wherein the issue of jurisdiction was conclusively determined in favour of the Delhi High Court. It was held that since the Railway Board—the authority responsible for the policy—is located in Delhi, writs challenging such policies could be entertained by the Delhi High Court under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.
The Court also acknowledged that the Indian Railways’ catering policy is uniformly applied across the country, and hence similar issues arising across different railway zones warranted uniform adjudication. The principle of parity was central to the analysis.
Precedent Analysis
Several previous judgments were relied upon:
- Sadeek Ali v. Union of India (Order dated 7 March 2025): A 7-month extension was granted to the petitioner for similar reasons involving pandemic-related disruption.
- Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India (Judgment dated 30 May 2024): The Delhi High Court held that it had jurisdiction under Article 226(1) to entertain writs affecting centrally administered policies.
- Shri Kishori Lal v. Union of India (Order dated 20 March 2025): Relief by way of extension was granted in identical circumstances.
These cases established a consistent judicial approach in favour of stall owners adversely affected by the pandemic and relying on centrally framed Railway Board policies.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court emphasized the following reasoning:
- The issue of jurisdiction had already been resolved in prior decisions.
- Uniformity of the Indian Railways’ catering policy means similarly situated petitioners deserve consistent treatment.
- Granting relief on the basis of parity promotes fairness and prevents arbitrary treatment.
- The petitioner voluntarily gave up other policy-based challenges, focusing solely on the prayer for limited extension.
Quoting from the judgment:
“This Court sees no reason to take a different view from the orders passed earlier.”
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner to continue operating the catering stall for a 7-month period beyond the existing extension up to 8 August 2025. This relief is conditional upon:
- Payment of stipulated license fees.
- Filing an undertaking within 4 weeks agreeing to vacate the stall upon expiry.
- No impediment to Indian Railways issuing fresh tenders after the extended period.
The writ petition and connected applications were disposed of accordingly.
Implications
- Reinforcement of Uniformity Principle: Railway policies, when centrally framed, will be uniformly applied across jurisdictions, ensuring fairness.
- Jurisdiction Clarified: The Delhi High Court can entertain writs challenging central Railway policies due to the presence of the Railway Board in Delhi.
- Pandemic Relief Jurisprudence: Stall holders impacted by COVID-19 disruptions can expect parity-based relief if similar circumstances are shown.
Cases Referred and Their Relevance
- Sadeek Ali v. Union of India: Granted a 7-month extension based on the pandemic’s impact.
- Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India: Established jurisdiction of Delhi High Court under Article 226(1) where central Railway policies are challenged.
- Shri Kishori Lal v. Union of India: Granted similar relief for stall operation.
- Jayaswals Neco: Highlighted how writ jurisdiction lies where the policy-making authority (Railway Board) is located.
FAQs
Q1. Can the Delhi High Court entertain writs concerning stalls located in other states?
Yes. If the challenge is to a centrally issued policy by the Railway Board located in Delhi, the Delhi High Court has jurisdiction under Article 226(1) of the Constitution.
Q2. Can other stall owners affected by COVID-19 disruptions also seek extension?
Yes. As per precedents like Sadeek Ali and Shri Kishori Lal, similar extensions have been granted, reinforcing a parity-based approach.
Q3. Does this extension prevent the Railways from issuing new tenders?
No. The Court made it clear that the Railways are free to issue new tenders upon the expiry of the extended license period.
