JAYANTA KUMAR GHOSE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petitioner is a caterer for both the onward and return journey of the train Howrah Amritsar Express (Mail) (in short "the train"). For the onward journey from Howrah to Amritsar the train is numbered as 3005 up whereas for the return journey it is numbered as3006 Dn. There is a continuing tussle between the petitioner and the railways. It is continuing for years. The railways do not wish to continue any further with him and want to replace him with another contractor.

(2.) The writ petitioner was allowed to render catering service to the passengers of the train, by a licence dated 2nd January, 2001 granted by the railways. He was allowed to cater to the train, under the said licence, upon payment of Rs.6,27,145/- as security and Rs.12,54,290/- as lump sum licence fee for a period of five years. The agreement provided that renewal would be considered after five years. On the strength of such licence the petitioner started rendering such service from 8th January 2001. Now, the railways took a decision on 19th February 2001 to terminate this contract on the ground that their officials granting the licence had done so in violation of some policy directives.

(3.) The writ petitioner challenged such decision by filing a writ application No.1789 of 2001 before this court. That writ application was allowed by MHS Ansari, J. on 15th October 2001 by declaring the termination to be invalid and directing the railways to execute a formal agreement and "not to pass any order affecting the selection of the petitioner as the licensee for catering/bending through the pantry cars of Howrah - Amritsar Mail (3005 up " 3005 down)". From that order the railway authorities preferred an appeal before a division bench of this court being APO No. 469 of 2003. The court of appeal held that the respondents would be guided by the 1992 Catering Policy. The order said that the writ petitioner would be obliged to pay licence fee in terms of the 1992 policy. The appeal was disposed of. The date is very important. It was 31st August 2006. By that time the said agreement for five years had come to an end by efflux of time. Therefore, the Appeal Court just confined itself to the question of payment of licence fee. Nevertheless, I find that the Court held that the question of renewal could be considered in this writ application. By that time the present writ application had been filed.