High Court at Calcutta Upholds Eviction of Railway Station Vendors: “Catering Policy of 2017 Enforced Equally Without Discrimination; Refusal to Transition to Multipurpose Stalls (MPS) Disqualified Appellants from Continued Business”

Court’s Decision:

The High Court at Calcutta dismissed the appeal filed by platform vendors challenging their eviction and the demand for arrears under the new Catering Policy of 2017. The court ruled that the respondents’ actions, including the eviction and fee determination, were lawful and in compliance with the revised policy. It emphasized that the policy was uniformly applied and was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The court stated, “The actions of the respondents are apparently based on well-defined policy and applied equally to all concerned without discrimination.”

Facts:

1. Background of the Appellants’ Business:
   • The appellants operated vending stalls at Sealdah Railway Station, selling items like food and toys under licenses issued by the railway authorities.
   • Initially, they were subject to agreements under older catering policies that allowed them to conduct business after paying a license fee.
2. Policy Changes:
   • In 2000 and 2005, new catering policies were introduced, gradually transferring station management responsibilities to the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation (IRCTC).
   • In 2010, another policy mandated that contracts for catering units would be managed by zonal railways, leaving IRCTC to handle larger facilities like food courts.
3. Introduction of Catering Policy 2017:
   • The 2017 policy replaced the earlier frameworks and required licenses for vending stalls to be issued through e-tendering.
   • The appellants were invited to transition to multipurpose stalls (MPS) under this policy, but they refused.
4. Demands and Eviction:
   • Respondents issued arrears notices, claiming over ₹11,00,000 in unpaid fees from 2017 to 2020, including GST.
   • The appellants argued that these demands were exorbitant, arbitrary, and financially unfeasible, particularly in light of reduced business during the COVID-19 pandemic.
   • Eventually, the respondents issued eviction notices, and the appellants were removed from the premises on November 10, 2022.

Issues:

1. Were the respondents’ demands for arrears under the Catering Policy of 2017 arbitrary and discriminatory?
2. Was the eviction of the appellants justified in light of their refusal to transition to multipurpose stalls?
3. Did the respondents violate the appellants’ fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Petitioner’s Arguments:

• The appellants challenged the validity of the Catering Policy of 2010 and its successor, the Catering Policy of 2017, claiming they were discriminatory and unconstitutional.
• They argued that the license fees demanded under the 2017 policy were:
  • Arbitrary and disproportionate to their revenue.
  • Beyond their financial capacity, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, which reduced passenger footfall and demand.
  • Fixed without disclosing the criteria or methodology, violating principles of fairness and transparency.
• The appellants contended that the policy unfairly targeted small vendors, depriving them of their livelihoods.
• They sought renewal of licenses under previous terms or recalibration of the arrears based on earlier fee structures.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondents emphasized the legality and necessity of implementing the Catering Policy of 2017, asserting:
  • The appellants were informed about the policy changes and invited to transition to MPS, but they refused.
  • The arrears were calculated based on well-defined parameters, such as:
    • Station classification.
    • Area occupied by the stalls.
    • Market benchmarks, including tenders for similar businesses.
  • The policy mandated e-tendering for allocating vending licenses, leaving no scope for renewal of earlier licenses.
  • The demands were not arbitrary but aligned with the updated framework, ensuring fairness and transparency.
• The respondents argued that the eviction was justified due to non-compliance with the policy.

Analysis of the Law:

1. Uniform Application of the Policy:
   • The court noted that the Catering Policy of 2017 was consistently applied across all vendors.
   • The classification of stations, stall areas, and e-tendering requirements were clearly defined and publicly disclosed.
2. Arbitrariness and Discrimination:
   • The court rejected the appellants’ claim of arbitrariness, reasoning that the policy was based on objective parameters and market-driven principles.
   • It emphasized that past practices or fees could not override a comprehensive and updated policy framework.
3. COVID-19 Considerations:
   • While acknowledging the financial difficulties caused by the pandemic, the court concluded that the appellants failed to substantiate how the policy or its implementation violated their fundamental rights.

Precedent Analysis:

1. Senior Divisional Manager, South Central Railways (2016):
   • Emphasized the judiciary’s duty to protect marginalized communities but upheld policies if uniformly applied.
2. Hukum Chandra vs. Nemi Chand Jain (2019):
   • Recognized the court’s power to consider subsequent events but highlighted the need for claims to be rooted in equity and legality.
3. Bindu Devi vs. General Manager, Eastern Railways (2020):
   • Affirmed that e-tendering processes were lawful and necessary for fair allocation of resources.

Court’s Reasoning:

• The court observed that the appellants’ refusal to transition to MPS under the 2017 policy left them ineligible for continued business on the platform.
• It held that the arrears were calculated based on transparent and published criteria, undermining claims of arbitrariness.
• It emphasized that the appellants could still participate in the tender process for vending licenses under the new policy.

Conclusion:

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding:

• The validity of the Catering Policy of 2017.
• The respondents’ right to enforce arrears and evict non-compliant vendors. The court concluded that the appellants failed to demonstrate any violation of their fundamental rights or arbitrary action by the respondents.

Implications:

1. Reinforcement of Administrative Policies:
   • The judgment underscores the judiciary’s deference to well-defined policies, provided they are uniformly applied.
2. Adherence to Policy Changes:
   • Businesses operating in public spaces must adapt to updated administrative policies or risk exclusion.
3. Balancing Equity and Governance:
   • While courts remain vigilant about protecting marginalized groups, they recognize the necessity of policy frameworks that balance fairness and economic efficiency.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Partially Quashes Domestic Violence Proceedings: Husband to Face Trial for Prima Facie Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC; Parents Excluded Due to General Allegations