IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16355 of 2011 M/S Kumar Arjun Singh & Sons through its proprietor Nibha Singh @ Nibha Kumari W/O Manoj Kumar Singh at Barbatta Bazar, Sonepur, P.O. + P.S. - Sonepur, Distt. - Saran at present place of business, Milk Stall at Railway Station, Platform No. 1, Muzaffarpur. …………..Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union Of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway Hajipur at Vaishali. 2. The Managing Director (Licensor), Indian Railway Catering & Tourism Corporation Ltd. Corporate Office at 9th Floor, Bank Of Baroda Building 16, Parliament Street, New Delhi 3. The Managing Director (Licensee), Bihar State Co-Operative Milk Producer Federation Limited Dairy Development Complex Post B.V College, Patna - 14 4. The Managing Director, Tirhut Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd. Muzaffarpur …………………………….Respondents. For the petitioner :Mr. Anirudh Kr. Sinha, Advocate. For the Railway : Dr. Kumar Uday Pratap, Advocate. For respondent nos.3 & 4: Mr. Rajesh Prasad Choudhary, Advocate. ---------------------------------- 05/ 09.12.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the East Central Railway and Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited as well as learned counsel for the Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Limited and Tirhut Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Ltd, Muzaffarpur. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 22.07.2011/01.08.2011 (Annexure-5) issued by the Managing Director of Tirhut Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangh Limited, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.4) refusing to renew the operatorship of the petitioner which had ended on 23.07.2011 in the light of Clause 24 of the Railway Catering Policy, 2010. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that - 2 - the petitioner was appointed operator of Bihar State Co- operative Milk Producer Federation Limited through a registered agreement dated 23.07.2008 between the petitioner and the aforesaid federation. He further submits that the transaction was between the petitioner and the COMFED and no bar has been provided by the COMFED with respect to the relatives of the railway employees and hence the petitioner was not affected by any policy of the Railways. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Railways merely allotted space to COMFED which was utilized by the petitioner as operator of the COMFED as there was no provision of even sub-lessee in the railway policy. He also states that at the time of the aforesaid agreement no objection was raised and only when the period of the earlier agreement expired and the petitioner applied for renewal, the said objection has been raised taking plea of the Railway Policy. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also avers that the father and brother of the petitioner had already died, whereafter the petitioner has to maintain her mother and sister- in-law from her earning and hence even if the husband of the petitioner is a railway employee, it is the liability of the petitioner to maintain her mother and other members of her father’s family. He also refers to Clause-25 of the Railway Policy in which the family members of railway employees can be included in exceptional cases. - 3 - 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 as well as learned counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4 contest the claim of the petitioner and state that the term of agreement dated 23.07.2008 was only for three years which expired on 23.07.2011. Hence they submit that since renewal has to be made in the year 2011, authorities were bound to pass any order in term of Railway Catering Policy of 2010. They further argue that even when the Railway Catering Policy of 2005 was not followed at the time of entering into an agreement in the year 2008, it does not mean that at the time of renewal in the year 2011 Railway Catering Policy 2010 will not be followed. 7. Considering the averments made by learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record, it is not in dispute that an agreement dated 23.07.2008 (Annexure-2) was entered into between the Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited (IRCTC) (respondent no.2) and Bihar State Co-operative Milk Producer Federation Limited, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.3) and also Nibha Singh (petitioner) which clearly showed that the Corporation was the licensor, the federation was the licensee and the petitioner was a sub-lessee/operator and the said tripartite agreement was for sale of milk and milk products through milk stalls at Railway Stations. In the said circumstances, Railway Catering Policy squarely covered the transaction. 8. Earlier in the Railway Catering Policy of 2005 - 4 - it was provided that no vending license can be granted to any family member of railway employee. In the Railway Catering Policy of 2010 also it was provided that no catering/vending license should be awarded to any government employee or railway servant or any other member of his/her family and the existing catering/vending licensees, who are coming under this category, should also not be allowed to continue their license. Admittedly the husband of the petitioner is a railway employee and hence the petitioner is squarely covered by the said provision. 9. So far the argument that at the time of original agreement dated 23.07.2008 the Railway Catering Policy of 2005 was in force, but in spite of that the said agreement was executed is concerned, even if a wrong had been committed in the year 2008 there is no justification to continue the said wrong in 2011, specially when a fresh Railway Catering Policy of 2010 has come into force which also specifically provided the aforesaid bar to the family members of the railway employees. 10. So far Clause 25 of the Railway Catering Policy of 2010 relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it has been provided only in case of old age, disability, infirmity etc. of the railway employees in exceptional cases only and that too on the request of such employees. This is not the matter in the instant case as no such request had been made by the husband of the petitioner nor it - 5 - had ever been claimed by the petitioner that her husband was suffering from any disability or infirmity. In the said circumstances, the said provision does not support the petitioner. 11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court does not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. Harish (S.N. Hussain, J.)