WP/35836/2025 of Shaik Khader Basha Vs Union of India on 8 January 2026

[3300 I AD HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDE (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT , THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA WRIT PETITION NO: Shaik Khader Basha, S/o Sk.Hajipeera, aged 64 years Licensee of Stall No. SMU/018, Platform No 4 and 5, Kachiguda Railway Station, Hyderabad - 500027, Ryo 1-1768-1 , Appa Rao Building, Opp, Singareddy Apartment, Gandhi Nagar, Yerra Mukha Palli (Y.M.Palli), KADAPA, Andhra Pradesh- 516001 ...PETITIONER AND 1 . Union of lndia, Rep by The Chief Executive Officer-cum- Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of Railways, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001

2. The General Manager, South Central Railway, Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad, Telangana State - 500071

3. The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad Bhawan, Secunderabad - 500071 3s836 0F 2025 Between ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased lo issue a Writ, Order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent Railways to renew the license of SMU No- 018lKCGl4-5lTS from 30.O7.2O25 in accordance with the provisions of Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 granting all copsequential benefits. lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the action conveyed vide Letter No. Y/C.79/CATG/KCG-SMU-TS/PF-4-5 DIME END/2025, dated 21 .11.2025. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI K.R.K.V.PRASAD Counsel for the Respondent: SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, . Dy.Solicitor General Of lndia The Court made the following: ORDER

IN TIIE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No. 35836 OF 2o25 o8.o L.2026 Betwe,en: Shaik l(hadar Basha ..... Petitioner And Union of India Rep. by the Chief Executive Officer-cum-Chairman & two cthers. .. Respondents ORDI} R: Petitioner states that he has been earning his tivelihood solely through raiiway catering licences. He previously held pla':form sta-lls at various railway stations and was awarded a Special Minor Unit Tea Stall No. SMU/018 on Platforms 4 and 5 at Kacheguda Railway Station with effect from 10.09.2016. He was also awarded a General Minor Unit licence at Guntakal Railway Station with effect from 19.O7.2Ot8. It is stated, notifications issued under Catering Policy, 2OLO were challenged by the SCR Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Association and others in Writ Petition Nos . L4577,

14888 and L5O72 of 2013. By order dated 16.08.2013, this Court held that existing licensees were entitled to consideration for renewal subject to policy conditions, which order was confirmed by the Division Bench on 12.09.2013 in Writ Appeal Nos. 1573,1574 and 1575 of2013.

1.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6L8-62O of 20 16 arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 9921-9923 of 2014, by judgment dated 29.OL.2016, held that denial of renewal was arbitrary and it affected the right to livelihood of licensees solely dependent on such units. The Court clarified that renewal would be available onLy to those holding a single unit and declaring the same on affidavit. It is stated further, subsequently, the Ministry of Railways issued Catering Policy, 2fr17 uide Commercial Circular No. 20 of 2OL7 dated 27.02.20 17, revising the teni:re of units to five years without renewal. In compliance with the Supreme Court judgment, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2077 dated 15.O3.2OL7 was issued, permitting renewal of a single retained minor unit after surrender of other units, subject to conditions specified. therein. L.2. At the time of issuance of Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, petitioner held the Tea Stall licence at Kacheguda Railway Station and a GMU licence at Guntakal Railway aJ Statiorr. The Tea Stall licence was awarded uide Letter of Award dated '.28.07.2O 16 under Special Minor Units - Minorities quota, comm€:rrc€d on lO.O9.2016 and was initially valid till 09.09.r)021. Due to Covid-19, a dies-non period of 323 days was grantecl and the licence was extended up to 29.07.2022. To comply with Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017, petitioner surrenclered the GMU licence at Guntakal Railway Station, which rsas valid from L9.1O.2O18 to 18.10.2023 and the said surrender was accepted by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manage:, Guntakal Division, and the GMU licence was surrend,:red with elTect from 18.02.2022. After submission of required documents pursuant to letter dated LO.O3.2O22, the Tea Stall licence at Kacheguda was renewed for three years from 3O.O7.2C22 to 29.07 .2025, and an agreement dated 18.11 .2022 was executed specifically referring to Railway Board letter dated 15.03.2017, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2OI7.

1.3. Before expiry of the renewed period, petitioner applied f:r further renewal for three years uide letter dated I3.l2.2otl4 and again on 08.05.2025 due to no response. He was pernritted to continue operating the Tea Stall beyond 29.07.2025, creating a legitimate expectation of renewal in terms of poticy. However, it is stated, he received a show cause

Notice dated 29.09.2025, served on 03.10.2025, invoking Para 17 of Catering Policy, 2OlO, alleging unsatisfactory performance due to penalties imposed on more than five occasions. Petitioner replied on 09.10.2025 stating that he retained only one stall under Commercial Circular No. 22 of ZOLZ,ldepend.ed solely on it for livelihood; complaints regarding overcharging of packaged drinking water were vague and did not identi$r vendors, and that penalties were paid to avoid disputes. L.4. By letter dated 21.11.2025, the 3.d regpondent rejected the request for renewal under Para 17.1 of Catering Policy, 2OlO, terminated the contract with immediate effect and directed closure of the Tea Stall. Petitioner states that no Show Cause Notice was issued during the subsisting licence period and that termination occurred after the renewal period had commenced. He had continued employing L2 vepdors in anticipation of renewal, and termination of the sole licence has caused severe financial hardship to him and loss of livelihood to those vendors. It is stated, Kacheguda Railway Station has 19 stalls operated by 19 licensees with about 200 vendors selling eatables and packaged drinking water. In penalty letters issued to petitioner, ro specific vendor details were mentioned, therefore irregularities could not be attributed to his stall !I

withou.t proper investigation. The allegations are stated to be vague end insufficient to deny renewal.

1.5. Petitioner also contends that reliance on Catering Policy, 20lO in the impugned letter dated 21.L1.2025 is illegal, as his licence was renewed earlier strictly under Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 issued pursuant to the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court. It is stated, Article 2-2 of the Master Licence Agreement required the Railways to notify parameters for determining satisfactory performance, which was never done after e>recution of the agreement dated i8.1 1 .2022. Letters dated 2;.1O.2022, 03.O5.2024, OL.O7.2024 and 03.07.2024 did not spet:ify that the1, would be relied upon for denial of renewal, and no Show Cause Notices were issued at the relevant time. ISsuing a Show Cause Notice after commencement of renewed period ir; stated to be violative of principles of natural justice and it would defeat legitimate expectation.

1.6. Petitioner relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sentor Dioisional Commercial Manager a. SCR Caterers, Dry Fnfits, Fntit Juice Stalls Welfare Associatiottl, holding that denial of renewal to persons soleiy depender.t on such units is unfair and. arbitrary and affects the t(zote) 3 scc s82

right to livelihood. It is stated that Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2017 does not contemplate coercive termination of the nature adopted in the petitioner's case. Petitioner alleges that Show Cause Notice and termination letter dated 21.17.2025 contain identical reasoning, showing non-consideration of reply and lack of an independent decision. The impugned order is stated to be non-speaking, unsupported by evidence of unsatisfactory performance, and passed despite absence of dues or court cases. The action is alleged to be arbitrary, irrational, illegal, vitiated by malice in law and violative of Articles 19(1)(g), 39 and 2L of the Constitution of India.

2. Heard Sri K.R.K.V. Prasad, learned counsel for petitioner.

3. Sri N. Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General, based on the written instructions submitted by the Assistant Commercial Manager, submits that Tea Stall was awarded pursuant to Tender Notice dated 30.1 1 .2015 strictly under the Catering Policy-2010 for five years from 1O.O9.2016 to O9.O9.2O21, petitioner is governed by the said Policy and the Master Licence Agreement, along with subsequent circulars issued from time to time. It is submitted, due to COVID-l9 pandemic, a dies-non period of 323 days was granted, extending the licence up to '29.o7.2022, and thereafter, upon submission of an affidavit under commercial circular No. 22 0f 20L7, licence was renewr:d for a further three years from 3o-o7.2o22 to 2g.o7.2025. According to the learned Deputy Solicitor General, renewal is not a matter of right either under Article 2'2 of the Master Licence Agreement or under Point No- 17 of the catering Policy-2010, and it is strictly subject to satisfactory perforrrLance of the licensee during the tenure of the contract. As per Article 2 of the Master License Agreement' particularly clause 2.2 relating to renewal, renewal of the agreement is not a matter of right of the licensee and is subject to satisfactory perforr-nance during the tenure of the agreement. satisfactory performance is assessed through various parameters including cirstome,r feedback as defined. under Clause 6.4 of the agreement, and the Railways are entitled to obtain independent customer feedback to assess passenger satisfaction' During the renewal period from 3o.o7.2022 to 29.07.2025, penalties were imposed on petitioner on six occasions for deficiencies including overcharging and deviation from service standards.

3.1. Relying on Article 2.2(b) of the Master Licence Agreement, which mandates timely pa]rment of licence fee and all appli<:able charges including fines and submission of No I I , I

Dues Certificate at the time of renewal, it is submitted that in several instances, petitioner delayed payment of penalties, thereby committing breach of contractual obligations. In view of repeated violations and delayed payments, Show Cause Notice dated 29.09.2025 was issued to petitioner, to which explanation dated Og.1O.2025 was submitted which was found unsatisf,actory., as it failed to justi$r repeated non-cor,npliance and unsatisfactory operational performance. Consequently, the competent authority terminated the contract uide Letter dated 2L.71.2025 under Para 17.1 of the Catering Policy-2OlO.

3.2. Learned Deputy Solicitor General also placed reliance on inspection reports and public complaints and submits that Commercial Inspectors conducted. inquiries on complaints of overcharging packaged d.rinking water, during which vendors admitted to overcharging and were found irregular in paying penalties within stipulated time. During inspection by the Senior Divisional Commercial Manager on 15.02.2025, it was observed that a vendor overcharged a water bottle by Rs.S/-, indicating a recurring practice. It is.submitted that the Railway Administration never directed petitioner to surrender the contract nor restrained him from participating in

any other tenders. Petitioner remains free to participate in caterir.Lg tenders across Indian Railways.

3.3. It is further submitted that petitioner's contention that Tr:a Stall was awarded pursuant to Commercial Circular No. 22 0f 2017 dated 15.03.2017 is incorrect. The stall was originatly awarded under catering Policy-20lo pursuant to Tender Notice dated 30.11 .2015, and therefore, petitioner is governe,d by catering Policy-2o10 along with subsequent circulars issued b)' the Railways from time to time' As per Article L3 of the Master License Agreement relating to Events of Default and Material Breach, failure to provide satisfactory services, breach o[ prescribed limits relating 'to fines and' warnings, furnishing false information for renewal, or ehgagenrent in corrupt or fraudulent practices constitutes material breach, rendering the licensee liable for termination and other penal action. In the present case, petitioner was penalize<l on more than five occasions for violations including overcharging, theretry establishing non-compliance with the catering Policy-2010 and the executed agreement, and making the petiticner liable f<rr termination.

3.4. As per Article 15.3, the Railway Administration is empowerr:d to terminate the contract by issuing a 15-day notice I

in the event of material breach or inability of the licensee to perform satisfactorily, and the decision of the Railways in this regard is final and binding. It is submitted that petitioner has not been blacklisted or debarred and continues to be eligible to participate in future catering tenders. In view of petitioner's repeated violations, delayed payment of penalties, unsatisfactory performance and breach of contractual and policy conditions, rejection of renewal and termination of contract was effected to ensure accountability, maintain public confidence, and safeguard the interests of passengers using Railway premises. It is therefore, submitted that action of the Railway Administration is strictly in accordance with the catering Policy-2010, the Master License Agreement, Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2OIZ. 4' upon perusar of the material on record and having heard learned counsel on either side, it is seen, petitioner,s contention that catering poricy-2010 cannot be appried is without merit. The original aflotment of Tea stall was under Catering Policy-2o10 pursuant to Tender Notice dated 30.11 .2OlS. Commercial Circular No. 22 of 2OlT does not supersede the catering Policy-2olo but operates *ithi, it, ll framervork, permitting retention of a single unit subject to condit;ons. The Agreement dated 18.11.2022 also incorporates the M,rster Licence Agreement clauses, including provisions relatinli to satisfactory performance and termination. Further, the reliance placed by petitioner on the judgment of the Honble Suprere court in civil Appeal Nos. 618-620 of 2016 does not advanct: his case. The said judgment itself clarifies that renewal is subje:t to compliance with poticy conditions and is available only to eligible licensees fulfiliing stipulated criteria' In the presentcase,petitionerhasad'mittedlysufferedpenaltieson more than five occasions' which' under Para 17 | of the Catering Policy-2O10, mandates rejection of renewal'

5. The plea of legitimate expectation also cannot be s'ustainecl.Merecontinuationbeyondtheexpirydatedoesnot conferaiegalrighttorenewal,particularlywhenthegoverning policy and agreement explicitly state that renewal is not a matter of right' Petitioner was put on notice through the Show Cause Irlotice dated 29 'Og '2025 and was afforded an opPortunitY to submit his exPlanation' The contention that Show Cause Notice and terminatitlnordercorrtainidenticalreasoningdoesnotvitiate the decision when the record discloses objective material'

ili ll r1 .: I li ri :; : t2 inspection reports, penalty records and contractual breaches. The decision is traceable to statutory policy provisions and contractual clauses, and therefore cannot be termed arbitrary or non-speaking. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that no parameters were notified under Article 2.2 of the Master Licence Agreement, however, the said contention is untenable in view of Para 17.l of the Catering Policy-2O70, which clearly prescribes imposition of f,rnes or warnings on more than five occasions as a disqualifying factor

7. Respondents further clarified that petitioner has not been blacklisted or debarred and he remains eligible to participate in future tenders. Termination pertains only to the i present licence and is based on documented unsatisfactory performance. Ifl this connection, it is to be observed, the principle of social justice and right to livelihood, though significant, cannot be invoked to protect practices such as overcharging passengers or repeated violation of service standards, which adversely affect the travelling public and tarnish the image of Indian Railways

8. This Court therefore, is of the opinion that the action of respondents is justified in the light of the catering Policy-2olo, Master Licence Agreement, commercial circular To,

No. 22 of 2017, inspection records, penalt5r history and due process. No arbitrariness, mala fides or violation of Articles 19(1)(g), 2l or 39 of the Constitution is made out by petitioner. The Writ Petition is therefore, devoid of merits and the same is liable tc be dismissed

9. The \['rit Petition is accordingly, dismissed. No costs.

10. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if any shall stand closed. SD/.P. PONNA KRISHNA SISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY/ SECTION OFFICER

1. One CC lo SRI K.R.K.''/.PRASAD, Advocate' I

BSK BS

one cc to SRI N.BHUJANGA RAO, Deputy Solicitor General of lndia' High court for rhe stateti "reri nga ni ai r-tyoera6ad. [oP UC] Two CD OoPies.

t t HIGH COURT DATED:08/01 12026 ,/ ,,.irid{i: r (- z 3 Jtil a0ffi

ORDER

WP.No.3li836 of 2025 DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUTCOSTS * 'k I leh