- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17326 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: B R NANJESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, R UNNING A MINOR CATERING STALL BY NAME MARUTHI ENTERPRISES, AT PLATFORM NO.2/3, AMUL MILK STALL, K.R. PURAM RAILWAY STATION, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS, BANGALORE-560 066 R/A: DIVYA KRUPA, 10TH MAIN ROAD, AGB LAYOUT, HESSARAGHATA, BANGALORE-560 090 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIKRAM HUILGOL., SR. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR MS. SUVARNA LAKSHMI M.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. UNION OF INDIA MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAILWAY BOARD, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI-110001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE DIRECTOR, RAILWAY BOARD, 256-A, RAISINA ROAD, RAJPATH AREA, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI, 110001 3. CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL SOUDHA, HUBBALLI-580 020 Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 4. PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMERCIAL MANAGER, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS, RAIL SOUDHA, HUBBALLI-580 020. 5. GENERAL MANAGER, VIGILANCE BRANCH, SOUTH WESTER RAILWAYS, GADAG ROAD, HUBLI-580 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ARAVIND KAMATH., ASGI A/W SRI. VINAY VENUGOPAL.,CGSPC) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ORDER BEARING NO. SWR-ZHQOVIG(TNS)/74/2026-0/0 DY.CVO(TRAFFIC)/462 DATED 20- 05-2026 (ANNEXURE-L) ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT, BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: 1.1. QUASH Order bearing no. SWR- ZHQOVIG(TnS)/74/2026-O/o Dy.CVO(traffic)/462 dated 20-05-2026 (ANNEXURE-L) issued by the 5th respondent, by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. 1.2. QUASH Order bearing no. Si.C.79/Catg./Static Units dated 21-05-2026 (ANNEXURE-M) issued by the 4th respondent, by issue of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. 1.3. DIRECT the respondents to reinstate give effect and renew licenses as in terms of order bearing no.C.C.79/Catg/Static Units 'J' dated 19-09-2025 (Annexure-J) by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 1.4. ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition. 2. The Petitioner claims to be a catering stall licensee and running/operating an Amul Milk Catering Stall on 2/3 platforms at KR Puram railway station in Bengaluru. 3. The grievance of the Petitioner in the present matter is that the catering policy issued vide Commercial Circular No.35/2010 dated 21.07.2010 had been clarified by the Principal Chief Commercial Manager (‘PCCM’), South Western Railway by issuing a Standard Operating Procedure dated 19.09.2025 at Annexure-J and in pursuance thereof, that the licence of the Petitioner has been renewed. 4. Now by way of a communication dated 20.05.2026 at Annexure-L the Vigilance Branch of the South Western Railway has indicated that the PCCM did not have the power to issue such clarification and the matter has been taken up by the Railway Board, it is required to be withdrawn. Pursuant thereto, on 21.05.2026 the PCCM, South Western Railway withdrew the clarification dated 19.09.2025. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 5. The submission of Shri Vikram Huilgol learned senior counsel for the Petitioner is that the clarification issued on 19.09.2025 clarifies the mode and methodology of issuing of notices, consideration of penalty and for cancellation of licences as also for renewal of the licence. Therefore, he submits that the withdrawal of the policy would have adverse effect on all stall owners. On that ground, he submits that the relief sought for are to be granted. 6. Sri Arvind Kamath, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, would submit as under: 6.1. At the outset, he contends that the Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition. According to him, the licence agreement in question has been executed by the Railways, acting through the President of India, with the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. 6.2. The Petitioner, at best, claims to be a franchisee under the said Federation and is not a party to the licence agreement. Consequently, the Petitioner cannot assert any independent legal right to challenge the impugned communications issued by the Railways. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 6.3. He further submits that it was subsequently discovered that the so-called clarification dated 19.09.2025 had been issued by the Principal Chief Commercial Manager (PCCM), which is without any authority of law. Upon complaints received from the vigilance authorities, the Railway Board examined the matter and took a policy decision to withdraw the said communication. In pursuance thereof, the clarification came to be withdrawn by way of Annexure-M. 6.4. Learned ASGI submits that the decision to withdraw the clarification is a policy decision taken in the larger interest of the Railways and with a view to preventing and curbing corrupt practices on the part of railway officials. 6.5. It is further contended that, under the applicable regulatory framework, only the Railway Board is competent and authorised to issue clarifications relating to the Catering Policy. No other authority, including the PCCM, possesses such power. Therefore, the clarification dated 19.09.2025, having been issued without jurisdiction and authority, is void and unenforceable. Any benefit claimed by the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 Petitioner on the basis of such an unauthorised clarification cannot be recognised or protected in law. 6.6. Lastly, he submits that the apprehension on the part of the Petitioner is misplaced. Any action against a licensee is required to be undertaken strictly in accordance with the terms of the governing agreement and upon compliance with the principles of natural justice. Show-cause notices would necessarily be issued to the licencee and it is for the licencee to take up the matter with the Petitioner, replies, if any, would be considered, and reasoned orders would thereafter be passed before any adverse action is taken. He submits that the impugned clarification purported to increase the number of penalties from five to eight and also extended the applicable timelines. Since the clarification itself was issued without authority or jurisdiction, no enforceable right can be claimed by the Petitioner on the basis thereof. 7. Heard Sri.Vikram A Huilgol., learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Sri.Arvind Kamath., learned ASGI appearing for respondents. Perused papers. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 8. The following questions arise for consideration: 8.1. Whether the Petitioner, admittedly not being a party to the licence agreement entered into between the Railways and the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., possesses the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition? 8.2. If so, whether the clarification dated 19.09.2025 issued by the PCCM conferred any enforceable right upon the Petitioner, and whether the Railway Board was justified in withdrawing the same by Annexure-M on the ground that the clarification had been issued without authority or jurisdiction? 9. This Court answer the above points as follows: 10. Answer to point No.1: Whether the Petitioner, admittedly not being a party to the licence agreement entered into between the Railways and the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., possesses the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition? 10.1. The contention of the learned ASGI is that the Petitioner lacks the requisite locus standi to maintain the present petition, since the Petitioner is not a party to the licence agreement governing the subject stall. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 10.2. A memo has been filed placing on record a copy of the Licence Agreement dated 01.09.2017. A perusal of the said agreement indicates that the licence in respect of the subject stall has been granted by the Railways in favour of the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Admittedly, the Petitioner is not a signatory to the said agreement. At best, the Petitioner claims rights through or under the said licensee. 10.3. However, the challenge in the present petition is not to any contractual term contained in the licence agreement, nor is the Petitioner seeking enforcement of any contractual right arising therefrom. The grievance of the Petitioner is directed against the withdrawal of the clarification dated 19.09.2025, which, according to the Petitioner, adversely affects its existing business operations and exposes it to penal consequences. 10.4. It is now well settled that the question of locus standi is to be determined not merely with reference to privity of contract, but with reference to whether the impugned action has a direct or substantial effect upon the legal - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 rights or legitimate interests of the person approaching the Court. If the Petitioner is able to demonstrate that the impugned communication has civil consequences affecting its business operations, the petition cannot be rejected at the threshold solely on the ground that the Petitioner is not a party to the licence agreement. 10.5. In the present case, the respondents themselves do not dispute that the Petitioner is operating the stall pursuant to arrangements made with the Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. Any action taken pursuant to the impugned communications would directly affect the Petitioner's operations. Hence, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is a complete stranger to the subject matter of the dispute. 10.6. Accordingly, I am of the considered opinion that the Petitioner possesses sufficient interest in the subject matter to maintain the present writ petition. Point No.1 is answered in the affirmative. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 11. Answer to point No.2: If so, whether the clarification dated 19.09.2025 issued by the PCCM conferred any enforceable right upon the Petitioner, and whether the Railway Board was justified in withdrawing the same by Annexure- M on the ground that the clarification had been issued without authority or jurisdiction? 11.1. The clarification dated 19.09.2025 was admittedly issued by the Principal Chief Commercial Manager, South Western Railway. As rightly contended by the learned ASGI, the Catering Policy is a policy document framed and issued by the Railway Board. Any clarification having the effect of interpreting, modifying, supplementing, or altering the operation of such policy can only be issued by the authority that has framed the policy, namely the Railway Board, unless a specific delegation of power in that regard is demonstrated. 11.2. No material has been placed on record to indicate that the PCCM, South Western Railway, had been vested with the authority to issue the clarification dated 19.09.2025. On the contrary, the records disclose that, upon examination of the matter and on the basis of complaints received and enquiries conducted by the Vigilance Department, the Railway Board took a - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 decision that the said clarification had been issued without authority. Consequent thereto, the clarification came to be withdrawn by the PCCM at Annexure-M. The withdrawal of the clarification by the very office which had issued it lends support to the stand of the Railway Board that the clarification lacked the requisite authority from its inception. 11.3. If the clarification dated 19.09.2025 was issued without jurisdiction or legal sanction, the same would be non est in the eye of law. It is a settled principle that no enforceable right can accrue on the basis of an act which is void ab initio or which has been undertaken by an authority lacking competence. Therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim any vested or enforceable right flowing from such clarification, nor can the Petitioner seek continuation of benefits allegedly arising therefrom. 11.4. That apart, the interests of the Petitioner and similarly situated licensees are adequately safeguarded by the provisions of the Catering Policy and the terms and conditions of the licence agreement. Any action proposed to be - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 taken by the respondents would necessarily have to be in conformity with the governing policy, the contractual stipulations, and the applicable legal requirements. 11.5. It is also relevant to note that any adverse action proposed against a licensee cannot be taken arbitrarily. The principles of natural justice would necessarily apply. Before imposing any penalty or taking any adverse action, the concerned authority would be required to issue a show-cause notice, consider the explanation offered, afford a reasonable opportunity of hearing, and thereafter pass a reasoned order. The learned ASGI has fairly submitted that the respondents would adhere to the said procedure. 11.6. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the clarification dated 19.09.2025 did not confer any enforceable right upon the Petitioner and that the Railway Board was justified in directing its withdrawal upon finding that the same had been issued without authority or jurisdiction. Point No. 2 is accordingly answered in the negative and against the Petitioner. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 11.7. In the result, no ground is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. 11.8. Before parting, this Court cannot ignore the fact that the clarification dated 19.09.2025 appears to have been issued by the PCCM, South Western Railway, despite the absence of authority to do so. Such action has resulted in uncertainty and has led affected parties to alter their position on the basis of a communication which has subsequently been declared unauthorised. It is therefore open to the competent authorities to examine the matter and take such action as may be warranted in accordance with law against the officers responsible for the issuance of the said clarification. 11.9. The Railway Board is directed to issue an appropriate circular/communication to all Zonal Railways, tenderers, licensees and concerned officers clarifying that any interpretation, modification, supplementation or clarification relating to the Catering Policy can be issued only by the Railway Board or by an authority - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28620 WP No. 17326 of 2026 specifically empowered by it for that purpose, so as to ensure uniformity in implementation and to avoid recurrence of such disputes. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8