Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:87870-DB Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14891 of 2025 Petitioner :- M/S Madan Petha Store Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhankar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J. Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J. 1. Mr. Prabhankar Srivastava, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, under challenge is order dated 11th April, 2025 made by the Railways, rejecting application of his client for renewal of the license. His client is a vendor in the platform. 2. He draws attention to report dated 30th December, 2024 submitted by the Chief Catering Inspector that his client's performance is satisfactory. Inspite thereof, not considering the same and without giving any reason, there has been the rejection on allegation that his client was fined on five occasions and therefore, ineligible to have renewal. He submits further, for purpose of business his client did not apply mind on the impositions but straightway paid them. He seeks interference. 3. Mr. Vivek Kumar Singh, learned advocate, Central Govt. Counsel appears on behalf of Union of India. He draws attention to Catering Policy, 2010, clause 17.1, reproduced below. "17.1 Satisfactory performance of the licencee during the tenure of the contract. An imposition of fine/warnings on more then 5 occasions will result in rejection of the application for renewal." He points out from impugned order, the clause stood invoked therein. As such petitioner has no ground to seek interference. The writ petition be dismissed. 4. It appears impugned rejection is in line with the policy. Clause-17 in it provides for several criteria in the matter of renewal. Satisfactory performance is one of them. Payment of all dues/arrears is another. The renewing authority must, in the usual course of verifying application for renewal, look for compliance with the criteria for obtaining renewal. Hence, the Chief Catering Inspector was called upon to report on satisfactory performance as well as on payment of dues. Petitioner relies on report dated 30th December, 2024, which is also confirmation that he paid the penalties. Imposition of fine/warning on more than five occasions is a reason stated in the policy to deny renewal. In the circumstances, impugned order does not suffer from illegality. 5. On query from Court regarding mitigation Mr. Singh submits, petitioner might apply for fresh license. 6. The writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 23.5.2025 Abhishek Sri. (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Avnish Saxena,J.) Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad