IBRAHIM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge made in these two Writ Petitions is against the Catering Policy, 2010 published by the Railways on 21.7.2010 produced as Ext. P10 in W.P. (C) No. 25183/2010 which is a public interest litigation filed by an Advocate of this Court. Under the new Policy, mobile catering services including base kitchens will be taken over from the Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation (hereinafter called "IRCTC") and the same will be departmentally managed by the Railways in a phased manner. The catering operations of the IRCTC on implementation of the Policy will be confined to running of Food Plaza, Food Courts and Fast Food Units. W.P.(C) 28243/2010 is filed by IRCTC Officers and Staff Associations along with another challenging the Catering Policy of 2010 on the ground that on implementation of the Policy, IRCTC's work will be reduced leading to retrenchment or loss of employment. A detailed counter affidavit is filed in W.P.(C) No. 25193/2010 on behalf of the Railways justifying Catering Policy of 2010. We have heard counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and the Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the Respondents.

(2.) The common ground raised by both the writ Petitioners is that formation of the IRCTC and the taking over of catering service from the Railways by the Corporation was based on a policy decision taken by the Cabinet and so much so, it cannot be changed through a policy decision taken by the Railways. In other words, a major policy decision on catering taken by the Cabinet 10 years back should not be reversed by the Railway Ministry through the issue of Catering Policy 2010. Admittedly there is a policy change from 2010 onwards in as much as all kind of mobile catering services including catering on moving trains which were hitherto handled by the IRCTC are taken over by the Railways in a phased manner leaving IRCTC's catering operations only to the running of Food Plazas and Food Courts at various Stations. During the hearing held on 16.8.2010 we felt that if Catering Policy is introduced as part of the Railway Budget which got approval from the Parliament, then Railway is absolutely free to implement it because a policy decision taken with Parliament's approval cannot be questioned on the ground that it does not have the approval of the Cabinet. Therefore, we directed the Respondents to specifically confirm to this Court whether the Catering Policy challenged by the Petitioners is part of the Railway Budget and if not, whether it has got Cabinet approval. In the affidavit filed on behalf of the Railway Board by the Deputy Chief Commercial Manager, it is clearly stated that the Railway Minister while answering questions raised in Parliament in the course of debate on Railway Budget specifically stated that the IRCTC will be reconstituted and the Railway will manage Catering Department leaving Tourism activities to I.R.C.T.C. It is specifically stated in the affidavit that the Catering Policy of 2010 has the approval of the Parliament as it forms part of the Railway Budget 2010-2011. However, counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners in both the cases denied the claim in the counter affidavit by contending that Catering Policy 2010 is not part of the Railway Budget and it has no specific approval from the Parliament. According to me Petitioners, the impugned Catering Policy of 2010 is a reversal of the earlier Cabinet decision constituting IRCTC and transferring all forms of Railway Catering including catering in mobile trains to the said Corporation. Whatever be the correctness of the rival claims, we are of the view that this is not an issue which calls for our decision for more than one reason. In the first place, Catering Policy 2010 was published by the Railways on 21.7.2010. Obviously the Policy came to the notice of general public and the Parliamentarians in our country. In fact, when the Policy was published, Parliament was in session and nothing stopped the Parliament from taking steps to get the Catering Policy 2010 discussed and if the same is against Government's policy or against public interest, to reverse it. Therefore, Respondent's contention that Railway Catering Policy 2010 has the approval of Parliament cannot be easily rejected. Secondly, we do not think there is any scope for judicial review in the conduct of Government business as visualised under Articles 73, 74 and 77 of the Constitution of India. Article 74 makes it very clear that the Council of Ministers with Prime Minister as it's head will advise the President. The Prime Minister obviously is the Head of the Council of Ministries and it is probably for him to decide which are the matters which require Cabinet approval and which are the matters that could be left to the Ministries concerned for their decision. The question as to which are the issues that require decision by the Cabinet as a whole and which are the matters that could be left for decision by the Ministry are all issues beyond the scope of judicial review. Court can only ensure compliance of law including enforcement of provisions of the Constitution. We have not been shown that the Catering Policy 2010 is issued in violation of any statutory provisions or constitutional provisions. The objectives sought to be achieved under the Policy are quite laudable because the Railways want to provide hygiene and quality food to the traveling public at an affordable price. The IRCTC is only a subsidiary of the Railways and, therefore, it is fully under it's control. If the Railway is dissatisfied with the catering services by the Corporation, nothing stops the Railway from changing the Policy and taking over to itself the catering service. In our interim order we had specifically queried whether Railway could not correct or improve the I.R.C.T.C. so that the objective stated in the Policy is achieved without reversal of the Policy as such. However, the Railway has decided to take over catering services to itself leaving IRCTC to handle only Food Plazas, Food Courts and Fast Food units. We do not think the Court has authority to interfere with the reversal of the Catering Policy adopted by the Railways. However, if the objective is not achieved, probably aggrieved persons not served with quality food at moderate cost will have cause of action against the Railways.-

(3.) We, therefore, do not find any merit in the objection raised by the public interest litigant who is an Advocate of this Court that the Railway Catering Policy of 2010 is against public interest or public policy. We, therefore, dismiss W.P.(C) No. 25193/2010 filed by him.