High Court, As A Constitutional Court Of Record, Possesses The Inherent Power To Correct Its Own Record: Bombay High Court High Court of Uttarakhand Acquits Defendants in High-Profile Murder Case, Cites Lack of Evidence In Cases of Financial Distress, Imposing A Mandatory Deposit Under Negotiable Instruments Act May Jeopardize Appellant’s Right To Appeal: Rajasthan High Court Patna High Court Acquits Accused, Questions “Capacity of Victim to Make Coherent Statement” with 100% Burn Injuries High Court of Himachal Pradesh Dismisses Bail Plea in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam: Rajdeep Singh Case Execution of Conveyance Ends Arbitration Clause; Appeal for Arbitration Rejected: Bombay High Court Allahabad High Court Denies Tax Refund for Hybrid Vehicle Purchased Before Electric Vehicle Exemption Policy Entering A Room with Someone Cannot, By Any Stretch Of Imagination, Be Considered Consent For Sexual Intercourse: Bombay High Court No Specific Format Needed for Dying Declaration, Focus on Mental State and Voluntariness: Calcutta High Court Delhi High Court Allows Direct Appeal Under DVAT Act Without Tribunal Reference for Pre-2005 Tax Periods NDPS | Mere Registration of Cases Does Not Override Presumption of Innocence: Himachal Pradesh High Court No Previous Antecedents and No Communal Tension: High Court Grants Bail in Caste-Based Abuse Case Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Loss of Confidence Must Be Objectively Proven to Deny Reinstatement: Kerala High Court Reinstates Workman After Flawed Domestic Enquiry Procedural lapses should not deny justice: Andhra High Court Enhances Compensation in Motor Accident Case Canteen Subsidy Constitutes Part of Dearness Allowance Under EPF Act: Gujarat High Court Concurrent Findings Demonstrate Credibility – Jharkhand High Court Affirms Conviction in Cheating Case 125 Cr.P.C | Financial responsibility towards dependents cannot be shirked due to personal obligations: Punjab and Haryana High Court Mere Acceptance of Money Without Proof of Demand is Not Sufficient to Establish Corruption Charges Gujrat High Court Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case

Policy Ensures Fair Competition: Delhi High Court Upholds Railway’s Non-Renewal Policy for Stalls

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Delhi High Court has upheld the validity of the Railway Board’s 2017 Commercial Circular, rejecting petitions challenging clauses related to the non-renewal of licenses for multipurpose stalls at railway stations. Justice Sachin Datta emphasized that the policy was legally sound, non-arbitrary, and in line with public interest, ensuring fair competition and opportunities for eligible participants.

Maintainability:

The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain the petitions, noting that the Railway Board’s policy was framed in Delhi and involved the Northern Railway headquartered in Delhi. The court also recognized the broader implications of the policy affecting multiple jurisdictions.

Renewal of Licenses:

Justice Sachin Datta found that Clause 5 and Clause 11 of the 2017 Policy, which state that licenses for multipurpose stalls (MPS) are non-renewable and require re-tendering after a five-year term, were not arbitrary or unconstitutional. The court observed, “The petitioners have no right to compel the respondents to extend the license,” underscoring that the policy provided a fair opportunity for all eligible participants to bid.

Credibility of the Policy:

The court rejected the petitioners’ claims of coercion and economic duress in converting their stalls to MPS. Justice Datta highlighted that the petitioners had voluntarily agreed to the conversion and benefited from the extended tenure under the new policy. “The petitioners cannot feign ignorance of the policy’s terms, having enjoyed its benefits,” he remarked.

Force Majeure and COVID-19 Extension:

Addressing the petitioners’ plea for a further extension of licenses due to COVID-19 disruptions, the court found the 68-day extension granted by the Railway Board to be reasonable and based on ground realities. “The determination of the dies non period by the respective zonal/divisional railways cannot be deemed arbitrary,” noted the judgment.

The judgment emphasized that the non-renewal clause was intended to prevent monopolization and ensure equitable access to opportunities. The court referred to various precedents, including South Central Railways v. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn., to underline the principle that policies must balance public interest with the rights of individuals.

Justice Datta stated, “Accepting the petitioners’ contention would imply granting them a permanent, indefeasible right to seek extension/renewal of their licenses indefinitely, which is contrary to public interest and constitutional principles.”

Decision: The court’s decision reaffirms the legal framework governing commercial operations at railway stations, emphasizing the importance of fair competition and public interest. By upholding the 2017 Policy, the judgment sends a clear message about the necessity of adhering to contractual terms and policies designed to ensure equal opportunities. The petitioners were granted three months to vacate their stalls, providing them time to transition to alternative arrangements.

Date of Decision: 29th May 2024

Urmila Devi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.

Similar News