$~1 and 2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010371552026 + W.P.(C) 11556/2026, CM APPL. 53552/2026 VISHAKHA CATERERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mrs. Anita Pandey, Mr. Arjit Shrivastava and Ms. Vaishnavi, Advs. (M- 7827123744) versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP for UOI (M-999015411) Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay and Mr. Saksham Sharma, Advs. (M- 9026804805) 2 # CNR No. DLHC010371582026 W.P.(C) 11558/2026, CM APPL. 53556/2026, CM APPL. 59484/2026 RAJA CATERERS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Tiwary, Mr. Chandan Kumar, Mrs. Anita Pandey, Mr. Arjit Shrivastava and Ms. Vaishnavi, Advs. (M- 7827123744) versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Vinay Kaushik, GP for UOI (M- 999015411) Ms. Radhika Bishwajit Dubey, CGSC, Ms. Gurleen Kaur Waraich, Mr. Kritarth Upadhyay and Mr. Saksham Sharma, Advs. (M- 9026804805) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:17:36 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 29.09.2026 1. By virtue of the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek issuance of a writ of mandamus or any other writ directing the respondents to renew their respective licenses for their stalls at BKSC Railway Station under Adra Division, South Eastern Railway and Sealdah Railway Station under Sealdah Division, Eastern Railway on the basis of order dated 29.01.2016 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.618-620/2016 entitled ‘Senior Divisional Commercial Manager & Ors. vs. S.C.R. Caterers, Dry Fruits, Fruit Juice Stalls Welfare Assn. & Anr.’ 2. At the outset, learned CGSC for the respondents submits that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Senior Divisional Commercial Manager (supra) is per se not applicable to the facts involved herein in the present writ petitions as the same was specifically pertaining to the catering stalls governed by the terms and conditions of the Catering Policy, 2010. Contrary thereto, the present petitions concern Agreements under the Catering Policy, 2017, and Article 3.2 of the concerned Master License Agreement clearly specifies that ‘There will be no extension/ renewal’. 3. In this regard, learned CGSC has also handed over a copy of the judgment delivered by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Ved Prakash Mishra vs. Union of India:2024:DHC:4476, the relevant portions whereof are as under:- “19. The petitioners have heavily relied on the case of South This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:17:36 Central Railways (supra). In this case, the Supreme Court held that General Minor Unit or Special Minor Unit licensees, who were granted licenses before the implementation of the Catering Policy 2010, were entitled to have their contracts renewed under that policy, which explicitly allowed for such renewals. In contrast, Clause 11 of the Catering Policy 2017 clearly states that there will be no extension or renewal of Catering units except for units specifically referred to in para 3.8.1 (which is not applicable in present facts). The said action/policy of the railways cannot be said to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. There was no clause like Clause 11 of the Catering Policy 2017 before the Supreme Court. The said judgment cannot be mechanically applied in the context of the factual background of these cases. (... ... ...) xxx xxx xxx 23. In the present case, the licenses held by the petitioners are subject to the terms and conditions outlined in their respective licenses and Catering Policy 2017. The terms of license and said policy explicitly render the licenses non- renewable. Consequently, it is beyond the purview of this Court to mandate the renewal of a license in derogation of the Catering Policy 2017 and in derogation of the express terms of license.’ [Emphasis supplied] 4. In view thereof, as also considering that grant of a license, by its very essence, is only for a fixed period and subject to its own terms and conditions as expressed in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd.:(2013) 5 SCC 470 also relied on in Ved Prakash Mishra (supra), and the same certainly does not create any indefeasible/ indefinite/ permanent rights in favour of the petitioner/ holder in perpetuity. Moreover, the policy decisions of any Statutory Authority like the respondent no.1/ Ministry of This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:17:36 Railway herein, taken in public interest, also do not warrant interference by this Court, and that too by way of the present writ petitions whereby the petitioners have been unable to show any violation of their fundamental and/ or legal rights. 5. It is also worthwhile to mention that though the very petitioners, amongst others, had themselves also filed writ petitions being W.P.(C) 19194/2025 and W.P.(C) 1172/2026 before a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, however, no such relief(s) were sought qua renewal of the Master License Agreement(s) in W.P.(C) 1172/2026 as has been sought by the petitioners herein. It is also relevant to mention that the said writ petitions being W.P.(C) 19194/2025 and W.P.(C) 1172/2026 have since been disposed of vide orders dated 02.02.2026 and 30.01.2026 respectively by the Co-ordinate Bench and have not been challenged by the petitioners herein. In fact, the plea of renewal was rejected by the Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated 02.02.2026 in W.P.(C) 19194/2025 and the petitioners therein were directed to handover the premises upon expiry of the respective extended period(s). 6. Curiously, the petitioners have not disclosed anything about the aforesaid before this Court and are in fact silent about the above said aspect as well. 7. As such, since the present petitions are per se not maintainable in law and/ or facts, the same are dismissed accordingly. SAURABH BANERJEE, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2026/rr This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 05/10/2026 at 11:17:36