POORVANCHAL CATERERS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the renewal of pantry car contract of 2401 UP/2402 DN Shramjivi Express running in between PNBE -NDLS and back only for a period of one year instead of one full term i.e., five years in accordance with law and within the parameters of the policy decision of the Railway. By filing I.A. No. 4333 of 2002 the petitioner has sought for the relief against the decision of the Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. inviting financial bid for pantry car licence of Shramjivi Express vide letter dated 17.9.2002 and directing the Corporation to refrain from interfering with the licence of the petitioner.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 5 and additional affidavit and Rama Shankar Singh Versus State Of Bihar supplementary affidavit have been filed on behalf of the petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that reference of section 144 of the Indian Railways Act is completely misplaced in the facts and circumstances of the case. He further submitted that the 1992 Policy, contained in Annexure 19, was substituted by Catering Policy of 2000, which is subject to the Circular dated 22nd October, 2001 of the Railway Board and all these Policies and Circulars came up for consideration before this Court in CWJC No. 65 of 2002 filed by the very petitioner and the learned single Judge after considering all aspects came to the conclusion that the law is well settled that this Court in exer cise of extraordinary prerogative writ jurisdiction is reluctant to interfere with the administrative and commercial decisions of the public bodies and accordingly dismissed the writ petition by order dated 4.1.2001, contained in Annexure R/2, against which the petitioner filed appeal, bearing L.P.A. No. 178 of 2002, which was also dismissed vide Annexure R/3. The Division Bench held that the petitioner has no indefeasible or absolute right in his favour and the respondents are not obliged or duty bound either to renew the licence or consider the case of the petitioner for renewal of licence.