HARI KISHAN OJHA Vs. PRABHU DAYAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Learned Single Judge, following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 19135 -19138 of 2012 [Union of India and Anr. v. Khurshid Ahmed and Ors., dated 05.09.2012], has granted relief to the petitioner, by setting aside the order of cancellation/withdrawal of allotment of stalls dated 25.03.2011 at Jaipur Railway Station, settled with the respondent under a contract entered into in pursuance to the bidding process, in which he was found to be the highest bidder for the allotment of stalls at Jaipur Railway Station for 5.66 lacs and 5.38 lacs each, per annum as licence fees under the Catering Policy of 2005.

(2.) THE clause 26.1 of Catering Policy of 2010, which replaced the Catering Policy of 2005, provided as follows:

(3.) IT is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the facts and circumstances in Union of India and Anr. v. Khurshid Ahmed and Ors. (supra) decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are not common with the case of the respondent, inasmuch as, clause 26.1 of the Catering Policy of 2010 squarely applies to the case of the appellant, and that since the contract entered into by the respondent was not operationalized, the respondent cannot take any benefit of the contract under the Catering Policy of 2005. It is submitted that in the case of the respondent, the amount deposited by him was refunded on 18.02.2011. The refund was accepted by him, after which the allotment order was also withdrawn on 25.03.2011. The respondents filed the writ petition after one and half year in October, 2002 without explaining the delay. He did not initially challenge the order of withdrawal of the allotment and that it was only by way of amendment application that the order was put to challenge.