IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.Misc. No.2585 of 2009 SUNIL KUMAR ROY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ANR ----------- 3. 16.4.2010 Heard Shri N.K.Agrawal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Dashrath Mehta, learned A.P.P. for the State. I have also heard Sushri Ratna Das, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner Sunil Kumar Roy to get an order quashing the proceedings which was initiated by an order passed on 4.7.2006 taking cognizance of the offences under Sections 418 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code which order was upheld by the Sessions Judge, Katihar, in Cr. Revision No. 205 of 2006 by order dated 20.11.2008. Some of the facts are admitted that the complainant had obtained a contract through vending licence to vend cold drinks, chilled water, fruits, ice-creams, etc. at the platform of railway station, Katihar. The complainant had licence to run four trollies and, accordingly, he had engaged some persons for the purpose. The licence was issued in 1989 and that was valid up to 3.4.1994 on which date it expired. It was alleged that the complainant applied for renewal of his licence and deposited the renewal fees, but a letter in the form of Annexure-2 was sent to him informing him that on account of determination of the term of licence as also on account of change in policy of the railways in such matters, it 2 was not possible that the complainant shall get his licence renewed and, accordingly, a refusal order was communicated by Annexure 2. On the above allegation the complaint petition was filed. It hardly requires to be pointed out that a person may have the right to apply for any licence for carrying out any commercial transaction or activity, but he could not be allowed to argue that the licence must be granted to him and in case it had already been granted the same should be renewed. Matters of public policy cannot be the basis for the prosecution of any Officer of any particular establishment. The policy decisions in respect of such business or service are informations to the public and reviewed from time to time and they are reviewed to be from time to time. If any service provider wants an improvement so as to bringing fairness/ transparency in the trade for which it had issued a licence to a person, like the complainant, the authority may refuse renewing the licence on the same ground as are contained in Annexure-2. It is admitted that the licence issued to the complainant which was for five years on determination had expired on 30th April, 1994. There is no order placed on record indicating that the accused or any of the competent authorities of the railways had permitted the complainant or further ordered him to deposit the fees for renewal of the licence. It was an unilateral act of the complainant which could not be binding for 3 the present petitioner. The review of the catering policy was done by the Ministry of Railways and it had already been circulated which had superseded all previous policies or guidelines issued from time to time on the subject of issuing licences to different vendors of eatables at railway stations. The policy was formulated by a screening committee formed for the purpose and it was absolutely in public interest that the same was subjugated and substituted by a new policy. This could not be an act which could be said to be dishonest or which could be said to be done by a particular Officer of the railways for causing unlawful loss to the complainant and unlawful gains to the railways. On the facts as noticed above, I find that the offence could not be said to be constituted. In the result, the petition is allowed, the prosecution of the petitioner in complaint Case No. 767 of 2002 and the order of cognizance impugned herein as also the order of the revisional court are hereby quashed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)