Case Note & Summary
The petitions involved a challenge to the Catering Policy 2005 introduced by the Indian Railways for minor catering units at railway stations across various zones, including Western, Central, and South Central Railways. The petitioners comprised associations of railway caterers, such as the Indian Railways Caterers' Association and Western Railways Caterers' Association, along with individual licensees holding stalls for decades. They contended that the new policy, encapsulated in Commercial Circular No. 8 of 2005 and amended by subsequent circulars on 21 and 28 December 2005, along with a tender notice issued on 9 January 2006, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. The policy effectively replaced the earlier Catering Policy 2000, under which the licensees had a legitimate expectation of renewal. The petitioners sought a declaration that the 2005 Policy and its modifications were illegal, ab initio void, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India. They also sought a consequential direction to extend their existing licences initially up to 31 January 2010 in accordance with clause 15.3 of the Catering Policy 2000, and thereafter to renew the licences every five years contingent upon satisfactory performance and payment of fees. Some petitioners additionally urged for the benefit of a separate circular concerning refugee contractors. The respondents included the Union of India, the Railway Board, various General Managers and Divisional Railway Managers, and the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC). The matter came up before a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court on 12 April 2006. The judgment, however, was oral and the available text only sets out the parties, the reliefs claimed, and the initial recitals. No arguments, reasoning, or final decision is recorded in the provided excerpt. Hence, the outcome of the petitions remains unknown from the given text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether Commercial Circular No.8 of 2005 (Catering Policy 2005) and subsequent amendments and tender notice are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution; and whether the existing licensees are entitled to renewal under the earlier policy.
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (04) 56
Writ Petition No. 569 of 2006 with Writ Petition Nos. 767, 1819, 1821 of 2006
F.I. Rebello, Anoop V. Mohta
For Petitioners: R.A. Dada, Milind Sathe, Atul Rajadhyaksha, V. Joglekar; For Respondents: Milan K. Banerji, R. Venkatramani, Sharan Jagtiani
Indian Railways Caterers’ Association & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the validity of the Catering Policy 2005 and related circulars and tender notice issued by the Indian Railways for minor catering units.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a declaration that Commercial Circular No.8 of 2005 (Catering Policy 2005), amendments by Circulars No.56/50/2005 and No.59/05, and Tender Notice dated 9 January 2006 are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21; and sought extension of existing licences initially up to 31 January 2010 as per clause 15.3 of the Catering Policy 2000 (Commercial Circular No.58/2000), with renewals every five years.
Filing Reason
The Union of India, through the Railway Board, introduced a new catering policy (2005) replacing the earlier policy (2000) for minor units, and issued a tender notice for awarding licences, which adversely affected the petitioners who had been operating under the previous regime and had expectations of licence renewal.
Issues
Whether the Catering Policy 2005 and its amendments are arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Whether existing minor unit licensees are entitled to extension/renewal of their licences under the Catering Policy 2000.
Judgment Excerpts
Petitioners in all these petitions seek a declaration that Commercial Circular No.8 of 2005, containing the Catering Policy 2005 and the amendments made thereto by Commercial Circular No.56/50 of 2005 dated 21st December, 2005 and the Commercial Circular No.59/05 dated 28th December,2005 and the tender Notice dated 9th January, 2006 are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, unconstitutional, ab initio null and void and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India.
The consequential relief is to extend the existing licences of the petitioners and or their members, initially upto 31st January, 2010 as per clause 15.3 of the Catering Policy 2000, contained in Commercial Circular No.58/2000 dated 20th October, 2000 and then renew the same by 5 years, from 31st January, 2010 and thereafter, every five years subject to satisfactory performance being rendered by them and on payment of the license fees.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court directly under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The matter came up for hearing on 12 April 2006 before a Division Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21
- Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950:
- Societies Registration Act, 1860:
- Shramik Sangh Adhinium, 1926 (Trade Union Rules, 1926):
- Companies Act, 1956:
