DIPIKA TANTY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, by means of this Writ Petition, seeks to quash the Notice dtd. 1/1/2016 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8, by which direction has been given to vacate the Stall, within seven day of receipt of the notice, and handover the same to the Station Manager, Sambalpur, for further action. It has further been prayed to quash the Tender Call Notice dtd. 22/6/2015, issued by the said Opposite Party under Annexure-9, and direct the Opposite Parties to allow her to continue with her operation of the Vegetarian Tea Stall at Platform No.1, Sambalpur Station, Sambalpur.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner was running the Vegetarian Tea Stall at Sambalpur Railway Station at Platform No.1, Sambalpur, under the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur, since long. Prior to 30/4/2013, the license for running the Tea Stall was issued in favour of the father of the Petitioner and after his sudden demise, the license was transferred in the name of the Petitioner. On 30/4/2013, Opposite Party No.1 issued a letter to the Petitioner regarding transfer of license of Vegeterian Tea Stall at Platform No.1, Sambalpur Station, and directed her to deposit the license fee and other charges, if any, pending against the said stall. Accordingly, the Petitioner deposited the required fees and continued to run that Tea Stall, as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement made on 7/1/2014 between the father of the Petitioner and the Divisional Commercial Manager, East Coast Railway, Sambalpur. No fresh Agreement was executed between the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.1 in spite of repeated request of the Petitioner. The Petitioner has deposited the license fee and the revised license fee for renewal of the Catering Unit, as and when asked by the Authority. The Petitioner has also deposited the provisional license fee up-to 20/1/2016, which was duly accepted by the Opposite Parties. During this period the Authority also issued Registration Certificate under Food Safety and Standard Act, 2006 valid till 29/9/2016. The Petitioner was also issued with Performance Certificate on 29/1/2014 and No Due Certificate mentioning therein that no amount is due from the Petitioner.

(3.) Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, contended that a Shop was allotted in favour of the father of the Petitioner at Platform No.1, Sambalpur Railway Station, Sambalpur, for a period of 5 years and during that period the father of the Petitioner expired. Subsequently, request was made for transfer of the shop room in favour of the Petitioner, which was considered and also the transfer of license was granted in favour of the Petitioner on 30/4/2013. Accordingly, she was called upon, vide letter dtd. 26/11/2013, to deposit Rs.2,75,000.00 per annum towards the license fee for a period of three years starting from 22/1/2012. In compliance of the same, the Petitioner had deposited the revised license fee of Rs.2,75,000.00, which was duly acknowledged by the Authority concerned. It is further contended that when the period of license was subsisting, a letter was issued to the Petitioner to vacate the shop room. Against which the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.22562 of 2015, in which an Interim Order was passed protecting the interest of the Petitioner to allow her to complete the balance period and accordingly, the Petitioner completed the balance period pursuant to the Interim Order passed by this Court. But, thereafter, on after expiry of the period of license on 20/1/2015, she has been directed to vacate the Stall on 1/1/2016 under Annexure-8 and consequently putting the Stall into auction under Annexure-9 dtd. 22/6/2015, which are challenged before this Court in this Writ Petition. It is further contended that putting the Stall into auction is contrary to the provisions of Catering Policy, 2010, which has been upheld by the apex Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways and others v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and another, (2016) 3 SCC 58, Therefore, in view of the ratio decided in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railways (supra), the Stall in question should not have been put to auction and, as such, the same should have been settled in favour of the Petitioner granting licence to her.