Civil Revision No.2708 of 2009(O&M) [ 1 ] IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2708 of 2009(O&M) Decided on : July 15, 2009 Sunil Sehgal and another ... Petitioners VERSUS Union of India and others ... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Deepak Thapar, Advoacte. Mr.Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate. A.N.JINDAL, J.- The petitioners/ plaintiffs (herein referred as the plaintiffs) have assailed the order dated 15.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Ambala, dismissing their appeal against the order dated 24.3.2009 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Ambala dismissing their application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In nutshell, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs are the small contractors and they have been running stalls at the Railway Station Ambala Cantt for the last so many years and providing catering services to the passengers there, without any complaint against them. Licences of the Civil Revision No.2708 of 2009(O&M) [ 2 ] plaintiffs have been renewed from time to time, but now defendant No.3 – Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Limited has decided to invite tenders for allotment of these stalls at various railway stations, including the Railway Station at Ambala Cantt. It is contended that without issuing notice to the plaintiffs and without following the guidelines and directions of the Railway Board, while adopting arbitrary and unreasonable GDP formula and fixing very exorbitant licence fee, defendant No.3 has floated the tenders. Some of the venders have challenged the said policy/directions before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which directed defendant No.3 to consider their representation within three weeks and decide the same. The plaintiffs also submitted their representations to the various authorities including the Chairman of defendant No.3 Corporation, but the same have not been decided so far. Some of the licensees approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court and it restrained the defendant No.3 from charging licence fee as per GDP formula. Apprehending that their stalls may not be allocated to different persons by way of auction, the plaintiffs filed the present suit for permanent injunction. An application for interim injunction was also filed. The defendants contested the suit as well as the application. Besides taking other objections, they asserted that their right to call for the tenders for fresh allotment on the expiry of the period of licences of the plaintiffs, could not be challenged. It was also alleged that the civil court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the policy framed by them. The learned Trial Court after hearing both the parties dismissed the application. The appeal filed by the plaintiffs also met the same fate. Civil Revision No.2708 of 2009(O&M) [ 3 ] Hence, the present petition. Arguments heard and record perused. Admittedly, the plaintiffs were venders at the Railway Station of Ambala Cantt and are licensees of the defendants. They have been selling the eatables under the licence issued by the Railway Authorities on payment of the licence fee. The plaintiffs' case is that they were given licence upto 2005 and in the year 2005, a new catering policy was formulated by the Railways to provide cheaper and better food to the passengers. This policy had been challenged before various High Courts as also the Supreme Court of India. There is no denying a fact that the catering policy was under challenge before the Apex Court, but it has not been disputed by the plaintiffs that the Supreme Court has settled the matter for ever by limiting the jurisdiction of the Courts for interfering with the said policy, while making observations in Civil Appeal No.1336 of 2006 titled “Indian Railways Catering & Tourism Corporation Limited vs. Indian Railway M & M Caterers Association and others” as under:- “These appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 24.1.2006 passed by the Division Bench of Orissa High Court. By the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with the Catering Policy of 2005 in respect of reservations. By now, it is a well settled principle of law that policy decisions of the Government should not be interfered in a routine manner unless the policy is contrary to the provisions of statutory rules or of the Constitution. Nothing has been brought to our notice that the policy is contrary to the provisions of the statutory Civil Revision No.2708 of 2009(O&M) [ 4 ] rules or the Constitution.” Thus, on the pronouncement of the aforesaid order and in view of the observations made therein, the question into controversy is no more res integra and the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the Catering Policy of 2005 as formulated by the defendants. In view of the aforequoted order, the plaintiffs cannot be said to have a prima facie case in their favour for grant of injunction. The impugned order does not suffer from any perversity, arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. Resultantly, finding no merit in the petition, the same is hereby dismissed. ( A.N.JINDAL ) JUDGE July 15, 2009 `gian'