WA 193/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR J CHELAMESWAR HON’BLE SMTI JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Aggrieved by the judgment dated 1-7-08 in WP(C) No.2504/2008 the unsuccessful pe titioner therein filed the present appeal. The appellant was granted licence for providing on board catering servic e on the Kamrup Express some time in the year 1998 and was being extended from t ime to time. As on the date undisputedly such a licence is valid upto 31-7-08. S uch licence was granted by the Indian Railways, the details of which may not be necessary for the present. Subsequently the Indian Railways decided to entrust the responsibility o f on board catering to the 5th respondent, that is, Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. It appears that the 5th respondent proposes to invite tenders for entrus ting on board catering operation on various lines run by the Indian Railways. We are concerned in this appeal only with the on board catering on the Kamrup Expr ess. In view of the pendency of certain litigations the 5th respondent though it appropriate to make some temporary arrangements for the on board catering on th e Kamrup Express as the existing arrangement is coming to an end. Therefore, the 5th respondent invited quotations from the existing empanelled licensees of the 5th respondent. Challenging the said procedure the appellant herein approached this court by way of the writ petition which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. The learned Judge by the judgment under appeal, in our view, gave a very cogent reason for rejecting the writ petition. Apart from that when the matter is taken up today for admission the learned counsel for the 5th respondent submi tted that the 5th respondent proposes to invite tenders from all the parties who are eligible in accordance with the norms prescribed by the 5th respondent by 1 5th of August, 2008. It is also categorically asserted by the learned counsel fo r the 5th respondent that the appellant also would be permitted to participate i n the process and his tender would be considered in accordance with law. In the circumstances we do not see any reason calling for interference with the judgment under appeal. We find no merit in the appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed.