Case Note & Summary
The South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association, a registered body of railway catering contractors, filed two writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Writ Petition No.4162 of 2024 challenged Commercial Circular No.24 of 2023 dated 14.11.2023, which was an addendum to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Catering Policy 2017, as unjust, unfair, and ultra vires. Writ Petition No.4296 of 2024, an offshoot, questioned the subsequent e-open tender dated 15.02.2024 floated by the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) for onboard catering services. The petitioner argued that the original 2017 policy was a cabinet decision based on the Railway Budget speech of 25.02.2016 and, therefore, any addendum required cabinet approval. The addendum was issued by the Minister of Railways and Railway Board without such approval, rendering it incompetent. Additionally, the petitioner contended the addendum ran counter to the original policy which had mandated IRCTC to manage catering in a phased manner and unbundle food preparation and distribution, whereas the addendum opened the field to outside contractors. The respondents, represented by the Solicitor General of India, submitted that the original policy was approved by the Railway Minister, not necessarily the cabinet, and the addendum followed the same approval process. The budget speech was not the policy itself, and policies need not remain static. The addendum was necessitated by hygiene concerns: earlier, IRCTC's subcontractors led to fragmentation of responsibility, so the addendum aimed to ensure accountability by mandating base kitchens and introducing QR-code tracing. No prejudice would be caused to existing contractors, and the court should not interfere with policy decisions under Article 226. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 15.02.2024, and the order was pronounced on 19.02.2024. The provided judgment text is incomplete and does not contain the court’s final decision, analysis, or ratio decidendi.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Commercial Circular No.24 of 2023 dated 14.11.2023, amending paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Catering Policy 2017, is valid, fair, and non-ultra vires, and whether the subsequent tender based on it must be quashed.
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (02) 26
Writ Petition No.4162 of 2024 (GM-RES) c/w Writ Petition No.4296 of 2024 (GM-TEN)
Jayakumar S. Patil, Mahammad Tahir A., Tushar Mehta, S. Rajashekar, Sadhana Desai, Abhinay Y.T.
South Western Railway Catering Contractors Association (Regd.)
Union of India (Ministry of Railways), The Chairman, Railway Board, The Director (Tourism and Catering), The General Managers, All Indian Zonal Railways, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. (IRCTC)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public law litigation challenging railway catering policy addendum and tender
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (association of railway catering contractors) sought quashing of Commercial Circular No.24 of 2023 (addendum to Catering Policy 2017) and the consequent tender for onboard catering services.
Filing Reason
The petitioner contended that the addendum was made without cabinet approval, contrary to the earlier policy which was based on a budget speech and thus required cabinet decision, and it was unjust, unfair, and ultra vires.
Issues
Whether Commercial Circular No.24 of 2023 dated 14.11.2023 is ultra vires and without competence as it was not approved by the cabinet?
Whether the addendum runs contrary to the original Catering Policy 2017?
Whether the writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 against a policy decision?
Whether the subsequent tender based on the impugned circular should be quashed?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the addendum required cabinet approval and was made without competence, contrary to the Transaction of Business Rules and the original policy which was a cabinet decision.
Respondent argued that the original policy was approved by the Railway Minister, not necessarily the cabinet, and the addendum followed the same process; it was necessary for hygiene and accountability, and no prejudice was caused to contractors.
Respondent also submitted that the court should exercise restraint in interfering with policy decisions under Article 226.
Judgment Excerpts
The petitioner in Writ Petition No.4162 of 2024 calls in question a Commercial Circular notified on 14-11-2023/Catering Policy by which addendum is issued to paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Catering Policy of the year 2017 issued by the 3rd respondent/Director (Tourism and Catering), Railway Board of the Ministry of Railways and has sought for certain consequential reliefs by issuance of a direction in the nature of mandamus.
The learned senior counsel Sri Jayakumar S.Patil would contend that earlier Catering Policy of 2017 was pursuant to a decision of the cabinet, as the Union of India through the Minister for Railways while presenting the Budget had projected a particular policy which was brought into effect. It was a cabinet decision. Therefore, any addendum to the said policy should necessarily go before the cabinet.
The learned Solicitor General of India Sri.Tushar Mehta representing the Union of India would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the speech of the Railway Minister undoubtedly projected certain traits to be the contents of the policy. He would submit that up to 2017 there were two distinct budgets presented in the Parliament – one general budget by the Finance Minister and the other Railway budget by the Railway Minister. This distinction was taken away subsequently.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed challenging the addendum and tender. The court heard arguments from both sides and reserved judgment on 15.02.2024. The order was pronounced on 19.02.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
