Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by Petitioners, a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, against the General Manager and other officials of Central Railway. The petitioner challenged the Shoe-Shine Policy 2018, seeking its quashing and directions to protect the livelihood and job security of its members, who had been providing shoe-shine services at earmarked railway stations for decades. The policy, formulated under the Railways Act, 1989, aimed to generate employment for persons from the lowest strata of society by awarding shoe-shine licenses to cooperative societies of workers in the tanning or leather goods industry, with preference for societies comprising scheduled castes and tribes. The petitioner argued that the policy and the ensuing tender process threatened their exclusive right to continue the work, thereby violating their constitutional right to livelihood. The respondents defended the policy as fair and transparent, designed to benefit multiple societies through competitive bidding. The court, in its analysis, emphasized that policy matters are primarily within the executive's domain, and judicial review is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness. It found no such arbitrariness in the policy, which was intended to provide opportunities to various cooperative societies, not just the petitioner. The court rejected the petitioner's claim to exclusivity, noting that the right to livelihood does not preclude competition among eligible societies. It upheld the tender process as ensuring transparency and fair opportunity. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, declining to quash the policy or grant the requested reliefs, thereby allowing the Railways to proceed with the tender process as per the policy.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Policy Formulation - Judicial Review - Railways Act, 1989 - Petitioner challenged Railway's Shoe-Shine Policy 2018 as arbitrary and sought its quashing - Court held that policy decisions are within executive domain and judicial interference is limited to cases of arbitrariness or unreasonableness - No such arbitrariness found in policy aimed at generating employment for lower strata through cooperative societies (Paras 1-5). B) Constitutional Law - Right to Livelihood - Article 21 - Constitution of India - Petitioner claimed policy threatened livelihood and job security of members - Court held that right to livelihood does not confer monopoly or exclude competitive bidding among eligible cooperative societies - Policy designed to benefit multiple societies, not just petitioner (Paras 3-6). C) Contract Law - Tender Process - Fairness and Transparency - Petitioner sought to restrain open tender and secure exclusive contract - Court held that tender process ensures transparency and fair opportunity to all shoe-shine workers' societies - Refusal to grant interim relief as petitioner's demand for exclusivity was unreasonable (Paras 3-4). D) Cooperative Societies - Registration and Eligibility - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Petitioner is a registered cooperative society under the Act - Policy requires award of contracts to registered cooperative societies of workers in tanning/leather goods industry - Petitioner's eligibility not disputed, but no exclusive right to contract exists (Paras 1-2).
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Shoe-Shine Policy 2018 formulated by the Railways is arbitrary, unreasonable, and violative of the Petitioner's rights to livelihood and job security, warranting interference by writ jurisdiction
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
Writ Petition dismissed; Rule issued and made returnable forthwith; no relief granted to Petitioner; tender process upheld
