VANDANA MISHRA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This batch of intra-court Appeals is filed being aggrieved by the common Judgment and Order dtd. 25/2/2026 ("Impugned Judgment") passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos. 18000/2025, 18035/2025 and 1727/2026 ("Writ Petitions") seeking extension of the license period to operate the catering license awarded by the Respondents in favour of the Appellants. As all these Appeals are challenging the Impugned Judgment, they are decided by way of the present common Judgment.

(2.) By way of the Impugned Judgment, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ Petitions on the ground that the respective Contracts entered into between the Appellants and the Respondents were after the onset of COVID-19 pandemic and, therefore, the Appellants are not entitled to rely upon the decision in Ved Prakash Mishra v. Union of India & Ors., Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:4476. The learned Single Judge has observed that in Ved Prakash Mishra (supra) while dismissing the writ petitions, the petitioners therein were granted 3 months' time to vacate the catering stalls since catering stalls were operating for a long period considering that the contract was entered into prior to the onset of COVID-19 pandemic. It is held in the Impugned Judgement that as in the facts of the present Appeals, the Appellants were allotted the catering stalls by the Respondents after March 2021, who entered into the Contract with full knowledge of the prevailing situation and the impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the footfalls at the railway stations, no parity can be claimed by the Appellants. The learned Single Judge has also observed that the Respondents had already been granted relaxation in the quantum of license fee as well as other benefits taking into account the reduced footfalls at the railway stations on account of COVID-19 pandemic as acknowledged by the Appellants in the Writ Petitions. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge by way of the Impugned Judgment has held that having obtained the benefit of the reduced license fee, the Appellants cannot seek extension of the license period.

(3.) We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the learned CGSC for the Respondents.