FOODWORLD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, a partnership firm, inter alia, carries on the business of providing catering services to the Railways. Respondents No. Nizamuddin - Secunderabad-Nizamuddin Rajdhani Express bearing train No. 2437 and 2438 w.e.f. 26th January 1998. The agreement was entered into by and between the petitioner and the said respondents on or about 16th March 1998. The said agreement came into force w.e.f. 26th January 1998 and was to remain in force for a period of five years. The said train was a weekly one. On and from 1st April 1998, the frequency thereof was made bi-weekly wherefor also the catering contract of catering was awarded to the petitioner. In or about September 1998, the Railway Administration took a decision to extend one of the trips of the said train up to Bangalore. The catering contract for the extended trip also was given to the petitioner on 3rd November 1998.

(2.) It is not in dispute that there existed a bi-weekly Rajdhani Express which used to run between New Delhi and Bangalore bearing train No. 2429/2430. For operational convenience, the number of the extended Rajdhani Express was changed from 2437/2438 to 2429/2430. In or about October 1999, a decision was taken to extend the only trip of Nizamuddin - Secunderabad Rajdhani Express No. 2437/2438 to Bangalore w.e.f. 7th January 2000. The number of the train was again changed from 2429/2430 to 2437/2438. The catering services continued to be with the petitioner. However, thereafter, Rajdhani Express ceased to run between Nizamuddin and Secunderabad.

(3.) The decision of the authorities of the Railway Administration to grant catering services to the petitioner, pursuant to or in furtherance of the afore-mentioned agreement dated 16th March 1998 was subject matter of a writ petition before this court entitled M/s Pee Kay, Associates v. Union of India, CWP No. 2/2000. The learned single Judge of this court dismissed the said writ petition. A Letters Patent Appeal was filed thereagainst which was marked as LPA 26/2001. The Division Bench expressed its anguish about the manner in which the Railway authorities as also the Railway Board had handled the matter as a result whereof seemingly conflicting orders were passed conveying an impression as if one zone was pitted against the other. The Division Bench directed: